Modern Romanism examined

Front matter

: or r se eee nas Seepage 5 see See caer ee 3 a 4 x i ci ¢ pei reacriates : : ade ean te piperent

‘ ; ; A eis; ‘ ; Ane : 2 rel er rnrtera eee ere : 5 pcipeeh as Dele yect eee : Se oke . cee hi . iss z on “ y " ti - ate cried ca mar

[rf Semen:

Part I Questions Bearing Upon The Papal Theory Of

CHAP.

. THE THEORY OF THE PAPACY . . ‘ .

TTI.

IV.

VII.

THE CHURCH OF ROME

THE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY, OR THE SUP- POSED PRIMACY OF ST. PETER . . .

THE THEORY A FAILURE AS TO THE TEMPORAL

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE .

THE THEORY A FAILURE AS REGARDS THE PRE-

SERVATION OF VISIBLE UNITY IN THE CHURCH .

CHRISTS PRAYER FOR UNITY . ;

THE THEORY A FAILURE AS REGARDS THE THACH- ING OF TRUTH , . . . . :

THE COMPLETION OF THE THEORY: THE INFALLI- BILITY OF THE POPE e e > e .

INFALLIBILITY “A PRIORI” , s 4 : ROME’S CLAIM TO EXCLUSIVE CATHOLICITY .

THE RISE AND GROWTH OF THE PAPACY * e xix

54 GI

XX

CONTENTS

Part II

QUESTIONS BEARING UPON ROMAN ERRORS AS FOR- MULATED IN THE CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. AND THE NEW DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CON- CEPTION

CHAP.

XI,

XII.

XIII,

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI.

XXVII.

.

THE CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. AND THE COUNCIL OF TRENT e e e . e e e e

ROME’S RESTRICTED USE OF THE BIBLE . ‘ e THE CANONICAL BOOKS AND THE APOCRYPHA. . TRADITION OF EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH SCRIPTURE . THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. ® e ® * ° PENANCE . ‘ ‘ . e e e : ’

THE EUCHARIS! (TRANSUBSTANTIATION) . «6

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS . ° e ° ° A SACRIFICIAL PRIESTHOOD . . : ° ° THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST e e COMMUNION IN ONE KIND e a ¢ e e TRAFFIC IN MASSES . ° . e e e ° JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION e ° ° WORKS OF MERIT AND SUPEREROGATION. . °

FUTURE REWARDS , e e e ° ‘ ° PURGATORY ° . e e e e e e

NO EVIDENCE FOR PURGATORY . e e .

PAGE

CONTENTS xxl

CHAP. i PAGE XXVIII. THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS . ° ° eo XXIX. MARIOLATRY. . . ° e . « 2 222 XXX. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ° ° ° ° 236 XXXI. ROME’S APOLOGY FOR MARIOLATRY ° ® - 242 XXXII. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST MARIOLATRY . ° - 250

XXXIII. HOW PROTESTANTS REGARD THE VIRGIN MARY . 254

XXXIV. THE INVOCATION OF ANGELS . . . « 265 XXXV. THE VENERATION OF IMAGES AND RELICS. . 269 XXXVL INDULGENCES =~. . . «swe 280 XXXVIJ. UNCERTAINTY OF INDULGENCES . . . . 289

XXXVIII. ROME’S ARGUMENTS FOR INDULGENCES e ° 293

XXXIX. DOCIRINE OF INTENTION e ° ° of NEZOD

Part III Some Questions Of The Day Connected With Modern Romanism

XL. NEW DEVOTIONS AND MODES OF WORSHIP . DOs XLI, DEVELOPMENT ; : ; : ‘ AMIS EAE. XLII. MORALS AND SANCTITY : : ; , RRs 7

_XLIIL. IS ROMANISM ADVANCING? . ; ; ; «) 333 XLIV. REASON AND CONSCIENCE . , ‘ é -- °340 XLY. A “LIVING VOICE” : . : : ; pin Sar

XLVI. WHAT GOOD HAS ROMANISM DONE IN THE PAST? 353

XXil GHAP.

XLVII.

¥UVIIL.

XLIX.

L.

LI.

LII.

LITI.

LIV.

LV

LVI.

LVII.

CONTENTS

PRESENT ATTITUDE OF ROME TOWARDS ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM . : . . . .

IS ROME BEING REFORMED FROM WITHIN?. ; ROME’S ENGLISH MARTYRS . ti x i : ALLEGED FAILURES OF PROTESTANTISM : 5

ALLEGED IMMORAL EFFECTS OF THE REFORMA- TION e e » e 6 e e e °

Part IV Some Popular Roman Fallacies

POPERY ON EVERY COIN OF THE REALM . e ENGLAND CONVERTED BY ROMAN MISSIONARIES . ENGLAND OWES SUBJECTION TO ROME. . .

THE PRESENT CHURCH OF ENGLAND A NEW CHURCH —HER PROPERTY BELONGS TO ROME °

RELIGION OF KING HENRY VIII. . . * ° THE SOVEREIGN THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH ° CONCLUSION , e ° ° @ ® ® 4

PAGE

358 362 365 369

383 386

QUESTIONS BEARING UPON THE PAPAL THEORY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME

MODERN ROMANISM EXAM TNE D

I

THE THEORY OF THE Papacy!

Question.—Is not the theory of Rome a magnificent conception ?—that Christ appointed a Vicar and visible Head over His Church upon earth, that St. Peter was the first Pope, that the Popes in all ages have been his successors, each endowed with the gift of infallibility and authority over the whole Church of Christ, so that all questions as to doctrine or morals can be settled at once, without the anxiety and responsibility which attend the exercise of private judgment? And the Pope’s claim to be king and ruler over all the kings and nations of the world, would it not, if allowed, put an end to war

1 The Greek word pappas, Latin papa, modern pope, means a father, and was originally applied to all ecclesiastics. It was gradually restricted to bishops, and the Greek bishops are called popes to the present day. Pope Gregory VII. forbade its application to any but the Bishop of Rome. Papacy signifies the office and government of the Papa, or Pope, of Rome.

3 A and produce universal peace? Is not this what we might expect from the design of God to reconcile the world through Christ unto Himself, and remedy all the evil which sin had made?

A.—Doubtless the theory is a most attractive one, but, like many other theories and speculations, it proves upon examination as empty as it is alluring, as baseless as it 1s fascinating. All imaginations as to what might be, or dreams as to what God might be expected to do, are presumptuous and dangerous. By similar @ priort reasoning, as it is called, we might imagine and expect that sin and suffering would never be allowed to mar God’s world ; that He would never tolerate the vice and crime and poverty and oppression and anguish which cry from the earth for vengeance, like the blood of Abel; that 1f He purposed to save and sanctify mankind, He would do it quickly and universally, and not suffer generations of men to live and die without even hearing the name of the incarnate Son of God, or of the tidings of salvation by the Cross. This, and a hundred other beautiful and attractive conceptions we might form with equal justice of how the world ought to have been governed, of how we might expect it to be so dealt with that it should know no sorrow and be filled with uninterrupted joy.

Bishop Butler long ago answered all such speculations of imaginative minds who argue that things must . be, or ought to be, because they wish or expect them to

THEORY OF THE PAPACY 5 be. Alluding to these “emendations and imaginary improvements upon the system of God,” he goes on to say: “It seems there would be no stopping till we came to some such conclusions as these—that all creatures should at first be made as perfect and as happy as they were capable of ever being; that nothing, to be sure, of hazard or danger should be put upon them to do; that they should always do what was right, &. &.” Then truly calling such thoughts a “train of folly and extravagance,” he justly remarks that “we have not faculties for this kind of speculation,” and advises that “instead of that idle and not very innocent employment of forming imaginary models of a world (or of a Church), and schemes of governing it,” we should “turn our thoughts to what we EXPERIENCE to be the conduct of Nature (1c. of God) with respect to intelligent creatures.”* Such human conceptions, be they ever so ingenious and magnificent, are nothing in the presence of the racts of history and the Facts of God’s providence, of which history and experience are the records. ;

1 Butler’s “ Analogy,” the Introduction.

II

THE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY, OR THE SUPPOSED PRIMACY OF ST. PETER

Q.—Is not the Roman theory founded upon the words of our Lord to St. Peter, “Z say wnto thee, That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church” ? (Matt. xvi. 18, Douay); and does not this imply that the Popes of Rome, as the successors of St. Peter, are the rulers of the whole Church on earth by Divine right ?

A,—This claim to the government of the universal Church, so amazing for its boldness and its rashness, is indeed made by Rome. Art. XI. of the Creed of Pius IV. declares, “I acknowledge the © Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church to be the mother and mistress of all Churches”; and Art. XII. further exacts the profession, “I vow and swear a true obedience to the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ ”—each under peril of anathema. Bellarmine, the great Roman controversialist, asserts, “Roman Catholics affirm that the Apostle Peter was appointed by Christ the head and prince of the whole Church in the room of Christ Himself,’* and says of the dogma, “On this doctrine the whole of Christianity depends.” A modern writer, who usually minimises Roman doctrine in order to conciliate Protestants, puts this plainly before the convert, “that you submit your judgment on all religious matters to the decisions which she (the Roman Church) has given, and to all those which she may hereafter give; and that you acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church to have a right, given by God, to command you in all that relates to your salvation.” ?

These statements should be weighed solemnly ; the constant assumption should be noticed that the universal Church of Christ signifies only the Roman Church. It should be considered how these claims invade and, if it were possible, curtail the headship of Christ over multitudes of saintly souls in all ages; how they affect more than half the Christians now living in the world; how they oppose the action and liberty of the Holy Ghost, who is a “ free spirit,” * ze. unfettered, and also the fulness and freeness of Christ’s salvation, which is promised to every repentant sinner; how it claims for a Church that personal responsibility of the soul which is alone due to God. Such reflection will be sufficient to

1 De Rom. Pont., i. 10. ? Bagshawe’s “Threshold of the Catholic Church,” 59. 2 Pe. AL 12.

overthrow these groundless pretensions from very loyalty to Christ, and from regard to the worldwide intentions of His love, and to the simple conditions of salvation as summed up by St. Paul, “ Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Tf on this doctrine of St. Peter's primacy the whole of Christianity depends, reason demands—Why then was it not revealed in Scripture as clearly as the Incarnation or the Divinity of Christ, or His sacrifice for sin? History also demands, Why was it not proclaimed in the general councils of the primitive Church? Why this silence? Surely because it had no place in the mind of God, or in the teaching of the Fathers.

Two distinct dogmas are included in the teaching of Rome upon this subject—(1) that our Lord gave to St. Peter not only precedence in honour over the other apostles, but an authority and jurisdiction which constituted him their teacher and ruler by Divine right; and (2) that this prerogative or privilege was not solely personal, but a right and power which was to be handed down to his successors in the see of Rome. Each of these dogmas is inconsistent with the language of our Lord, the usage of the apostles, and the practice of the early Church. Apply these tests to the first dogma relative to St. Peter :—

ist. THE TEACHING OF JESUS CuRist.—Three sayings of Christ to St. Peter are constantly quoted by Romanists—‘“ Zhou art Peter, and upon this rock

I will build My Church” (Matt. xvi. 18, D.); “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke xxii, 32, D.); and the commission, “ Feed My sheep” (John xan fo) 17; D.):

As regards the first of these passages, had it not been for the prejudices of controversy, probably few would have questioned that our Lord’s words to St. Peter conferred much favour and distinction upon him as a great foundation-stone in the building up of the Christian Church. A metaphor can be used in many varied applications. As regards the basis, the source, the life-imparting principle to the whole Church, there can be no question as to St. Paul’s assertion that “Wo one can lay another foundation but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. i. 11, D.). But in other applications referring to saints as “living stones” (1 Peter ii. 5, D.) gathered into the spiritual temple by Christ’s servants, the same apostle could write, “You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone” (Eph. 1. 20, D).; and St. John writes (Rev. xxi. 14, D.), “ The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Such a foundation-stone was eminently St. Peter. At a critical time in our Lord’s ministry it was the will of the Father’ to enlighten

1 “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. xvi. 17, D.).

him as to the dignity of His Son, Jesus Christ. The confession, ‘ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” marks a distinct progress of spiritual apprehension in the apostolic company.

Well then might our Lord single out the speaker for His praise and approbation. More than this it is impossible to draw from the passage, and the attempt to do so meets in a remarkable manner with our Lord’s own instant condemnation. St. Peter proved himself almost immediately to be no rock, no infallible foundation for the Christian Church, by his inability to understand Christ’s words respecting His suffering and death, and by the rashness of his rebuke to his Divine Master, The severest reprimand recorded in Scripture to any of God’s servants followed (Matt. xvi. 23, R.V.): “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto Me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.”

The passages in Luke xxii. and John xxi. have no reference to any dignity pertaining to St. Peter, but, on the contrary, only to his fall and to the Master's pitying and loving restoration. What more natural than that the one who fell most deeply should be called upon, when mercifully restored, most strongly to help to restore and strengthen the brethren whom he had misled? The thrice-repeated question recorded in John xxi. “Zovest thow Me?” with the bitter sorrow which it caused, can only have an honest interpretation in its reference to the humiliating fact that he had thrice denied his Lord. No stress can be laid upon one of the Greek words translated “ Feed (poimaine) My sheep,” as if its possible meaning, tend or shepherd conferred any authority upon St. Peter, as it was a common ministerial word, used, eg. by St. Paul when he addressed the Ephesian elders at Miletus, and called upon them to “feed (same word, poimainein) the Church of God.” Christ would indeed restore the disciple to his office, but only on the conditions of discipline and _ repentance.

This interpretation follows from other words and actions of our Lord. Had He proposed that a primacy of authority and rule should belong to St. Peter, why did He not settle the frequent disputes which arose among the disciples as to “who should be the greatest,” by saying that He had given that honour to Peter? Why not give that reply to the mother of James and John when she sought the highest places for them? Why check their human ambition to be called “Rabbi” by the caution “ For all ye are brethren” ? ,

The same silence, or more than silence, may be noticed in the whole history of the apostle. St. Peter does not send apostles to Samaria, but is sent. St. Peter does not preside at the Council of Jerusalem, but St. James. The lists of Church officers and functions always begin “ First apostles,”

never “first St. Peter.” His special work was not to be the head of the whole Church, but only the apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 1. 7, D.). St. Paul went up to Jerusalem and stayed with St. Peter fifteen days, but his remark upon that visit was, “They who were of repute imparted nothing to me” (Gal. ii. 6, R.V.); and in the same chapter (v. 11) he relates how when Peter came to Antioch, “J resisted him to the face because he stood condemned” (R.V.). Surely in all this ‘there are no traces of St. Peter’s superior authority and rule. The same conclusion follows from the Pastoral Epistles, in which the duties of the clergy are explained and their relation to each other carefully laid down, but in which there is no reference to St. Peter; also, from the letters to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse, in which the Churches are treated separately and locally without any allusion to a supreme head as representing Christ, or having any authority over them. The Lord Jesus Christ has not renounced the supreme government of His Church. He is still the “Head of the body, the Church” (Col. 1. 18, D.), and that with an individuality of omniscient power and love, for “ The Head of EVERY man ts Christ” (1 Cor. xi. 3, D.). But as the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son without sacrificing His own dignity, so the Son, in union with the Father, has provided “another Comforter (or Paraclete)” to administer the present economy of our salvation (John xv. 26), who “abides” with Christ’s Church, collectively and individually, until the spiritual kingdom is complete. Christ’s vicar, by His own declaration, is not the Pope, but the Holy Spirit.

Clearly the claims of the Papacy have no support from Holy Scripture.

And to the second dogma, that St. Peter was to have successors endowed with the imaginary powers attributed to the apostle, not the slightest hint of any such intended succession is given in the New Testament. Wherever in the Bible an official succession is designed, an express mention is always stated. So the promises to Abraham are expressly recorded as pertaining to his “seed after him” (Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 10): the priesthood of Aaron was to have an official succession, and accordingly it is clearly commanded (Num. xviil. 1-8): the kingship of David was to continue in his line, and the promise is made known (2 Sam. vil. 12-16). But no such direction is mentioned on this important matter of succession to St. Peter, proving that it has no scriptural warrant or foundation.

_ TESTIMONY OF THE FatTHERS.—The Fathers were not infallible men, but their testimony is useful in showing the judgment of the early Church upon the texts brought forward in favour of St. Peter's primacy and the supposed succession. They are here quoted in relation to the two dogmas, as the same passages frequently apply to both. The appeal will be the stronger if Rome’s own canon is borne in mind—“Nor will I ever receive or interpret them (the Scriptures) except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (2nd Art. Creed of Pius IV.). When such unanimity does not exist, the opinion of the greatest number must carry the most weight. Take the passage most relied upon by Rome, “ Zhow art Peter (petros), and upon this Rock (petra) I will build My Church” (Matt. xvi. 18). On this text, according to a Roman Catholic writer, Archbishop Kenrich of St. Louis, forty-four Fathers consider the “rock” to signify the “faith” which St. Peter confessed, sixteen Christ Himself, and seventeen apply the “rock” to St. Peter ; so that there are sixty Fathers against seventeen as to its personal application to St. Peter. The language of Origen (A.D. 234) upon the text 1s very striking: “If we speak as Peter did, ‘Thou art Christ, the — Son of the living God, not as flesh and blood reveals, but the light shining into our heart from the Father, we become Peter, and to us it would be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.’ For the term ‘rock’ applies to every disciple of Christ.” So St. Cyprian (A.D. 258) frequently quotes the passage to defend the rights of bishops, claiming that each bishop received the gifts that were given to St. Peter, but never quotes the text in support of the Roman claims.! St. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, wrote his mature conclusions on this and other questions, and inclines to the view that the passage relates to Christ Himself, led by the text, “ That rock was Christ,” and “ Other fowndation can no man lay”; but leaves his readers at liberty to judge. Evidently the Church had not then adopted Rome’s interpretation. And it is important to notice that those who considered the rock to mean St. Peter, as Tertullian, contend that the privilege conferred by Christ was exclusively personal and fulfilled by the part St. Peter took in the formation of the Church on the day of Pentecost, and by the baptism of the Gentile Cornelius.

Upon the passage, “J have prayed for thee,” &c., St. Chrysostom says it is because his presumption, as indicated by his self-confident profession of loyalty, required rebuke,” “He (Christ) said this, sharply rebuking him, and showing that his fall was more grievous than the others and needed more assistance.’ As to the attempt to argue any precedency for St. Peter from the command in John xxi. directing him to feed the flock, “My sheep” and

1 Some Romanists quote as from St. Cyprian, ‘‘ Primatus Petro datur,” ‘‘the Primacy ts given to Peter,” &c. ; but it has been abundantly proved that the words are an interpolation. See Hartel’s edition, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, c. 4, p. 213, and James’ ‘‘ Concordia- Corruption of the True Fathers.”

2 Homily in St. Matthew xxvi.

“ My lambs,” it is quite contrary to the testimony of the Fathers, as it is to any rational interpretation. No instance in favour of it can be found before St. Bernard (about A.D. 1150), when the Papal monarchy was already established by Hildebrand. Thus St. Ambrose (A.D. 397) says: “By feeding Christ’s flock well with the food of faith, he did away with the guilt of his former fall. And for that reason he is thrice enjoined to feed, is thrice asked if he loves the Lord, that he may thrice confess Him Whom he had thrice denied before the Cross” (De Fide, v. 2). So St. Augustine says: “Therefore He saith to Peter, whom He would make a good shepherd, not in Peter's own person, but in that of His body, ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep?’ He said this once, twice, thrice, to Peter’s sorrow.” Again he writes: “A threefold confession repays the threefold denial.” St. Cyril of Alexandria (444) takes the same view: “Through the thrice-repeated confession of the blessed Peter was annulled his sin in thrice denying; and through our Lord saying, ‘Feed My lambs, there is conceived to be a sort of restoration of the apostolate already given to him.”

These quotations are proofs that the Fathers did not regard the texts usually relied upon by Romanists as giving any supremacy of government, or rule, or infallible teaching to St. Peter. They speak in strong terms of his personal pre-eminence, and not infrequently apply to him the title of head and prolocutor of the apostolic body. But St. James and St. John and St. Paul receive titles as imposing. Thus St. Chrysostom styles St. Paul the “apostle of the world,” “the planter of the Church,” “the foundation of the faith,” “the pillar and ground of the truth.” Indeed, wherever “the apostle” occurs in their writings, it denotes St. Paul, not St. Peter. It is evident that they did not believe in St. Peter’s supremacy.

RELATION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME TO OTHER Cuurcurs.—As the Fathers did not believe in the supremacy of St. Peter, so neither did the early Church believe in the supremacy of the Church of Rome. The early Church recognised a pre-eminence in the See of Rome and its bishop much as the Anglican Churches throughout the world acknowledge the pre-eminence of the See of Canterbury—much for the same reasons, on account of _ antiquity and position. These circumstances confer a prestige and an influence not arising from Divine right, but from custom and the honour considered to be justly due. But as the Churches of the United States, of Canada, Australasia and the Cape, or the missionary Churches in various parts of the Empire, would resent commands and dogmas passed as by authority from Canterbury, so the early Churches of Christendom recognised a similar relation to the bishop of the imperial city of Rome

—a similar respect, but also a similar independence. ‘Thus when Stephen of Rome excommunicated Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Cesarea, both resented the action of Rome’s bishop. Cyprian wrote: “ None of us styles himself bishop of bishops, or forces his colleagues to obedience by dread of his tyranny, since every bishop is free to act as he will according to the liberty and power which belong to him.” Firmilian rebuked Stephen solemnly and severely : “ How mighty a sin hast thou (Stephen) heaped to thyself in cutting thyself off from so many flocks! For do not deceive thyself: it is thou who hast cut off thine own self. He is the real schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the Church’s unity.” The words might have been written to the Rome of the present day, so strikingly are they applicable. The same resistance to similar interference on the part of Pope Celestine was made, and with corresponding success, by the African bishops of the fifth century. To these may be added the words of St. Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate, when he saw the ambition of the Roman See to over-reach the less wealthy Churches: “ The custom of the Roman Church has no more authority than the custom of any other Church. The episcopate at Rome has no more authority essentially than any other episcopate. If it is a question of authority, the world is greater than the city. ... The power of wealth or the humility of poverty do not make a bishop higher or lower.” To the credit of Pope Gregory IL, at the close of the sixth century, let his protest be recorded: “My fellow-priest, John (of Constantinople), would fain be called ‘universal bishop.’ Priests seek for themselves ambitious names and glory in new and profane titles.”

Thus the Scriptures, the Fathers, and for six centuries the Churches of Christ in various countries, and even Rome itself, acknowledged no supremacy in the Popes by Divine right." A Romish writer,’ perplexed by want of evidence, appeals to what he calls the “fact of the supremacy”; but the fact never existed. The Greek Church never admitted the dogma, and at the present time more than half Christendom ignores the empty boast.3 The same writer goes on to say, “ God’s words are proved by their results.’ The results in this case are far from encouraging to the Roman claims, since her power and influence have diminished century by century, and the relative diminution still goes on. The unbiassed reader will come to different conclusions—(1) that the Roman theory is without Scriptural or primitive authority; (2) that Rome seldom interprets Holy Scripture, but that when she has built up a dogma or system from ambition, expediency, or other motives, she endeavours to accommodate Scripture to its sup-

1 Gore’s “ Roman Claims.” 2 “¢ The Invitation,” by Stone.

3 See chap. x., p. 66.

B port; and (3) that the Roman theory, however fascinating as a dream of genius and imagination, cannot fully satisfy the soul seeking after God. It is “as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth ; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he driunketh ; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite” (Isa. xxix. 8).

If a man is seeking only for a Church and a system, the Church of Rome may prove the most attractive to such an one by reason of its outward pomp and ceremonial, its adaptation to and compliance with the fallen nature of man. But if a soul contrite under the felt burden of sin is seeking God’s way of peace, God’s way of salvation, deliverance from guilt and from the power of evil, he will, like St. Augustine, turn from earthly systems to the revealed Christ, to a personal Saviour; he will ground his hopes of Divine acceptance upon the supreme Head of all the Churches and the fountain of all grace, even upon Christ crucified and Christ glorified.

The Roman theory is essentially a human conception, a kingdom of this world, a Papacy, not the kingdom of God, a complicated delusive substitute for the revealed simplicity and perfection of the Divine love manifested in the Divine Son.