The Papal and hierarchical system compared with the religion of the New Testament

Front matter

ety Sets = see

7 y, ry if i ree

ag is x or ate a oy

Chapter I. Page

On the Holy Scriptures. l CHAPTER JI.

On Antichrist, the Man of Sin. oF CHAPTER III.

On the Usurpation of Temporal Power by the Pro-

fessing Church of Christ. 54 CHAPTER IV.

On the Spiritual Power of the Priesthood. 73 CHAPTER. V.

V1 | CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VI.

On the Christian Ministry.

CHAPTER VII.

On the Sacraments.

CHAPTER VIII.

Conclusion

PAGE.

. 165

. 220

« OF

4 os a. * \? 4 BEC, JUN 188] \ A THHLOLOGICKLZ ie i ¥ J ">. OF HY MIN KB % 4a Winner INTRODUCTION.

Wuen I speak of the Papal and Hierarchical system, I do not mean to confine either my own view, or that of my readers, to the church of Rome. I speak rather of the system which places man under the rule of man, in matters of religion— the laity, more particularly, under the rule of the clergy; so that human wisdom and authority are found, in various degrees, to usurp the place of pure, divine truth. So also by the religion of the New Testament, I mean the religion of Him

Vili INTRODUCTION.

of whom the book testifies—even Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man; who has bought us with his blood, who is the sole High Priest of our profession, who rules the universal church by his Spirit, and who will come again in glory, to render unto every man according to his works.

The Greek church has its hierarchy under the supreme government of a patriarch. The episcopacy of the Anglican church is of a far less superstitious character; yet it presents to our view a fabric of the same kind, under the rule or headship of a temporal monarch. The Scotch kirk is governed by its synod of elders, under the direction of a Moderator ; the Methodists, by a similar council, composed of their ordained ministers; and there are few Christian sects which are destitute of some form or other of ecclesiastical domination. But it is in Rome that we are to seek for the system of man’s authority over man, in religion, carried out into its full and legitimate results. The Romish church, seated in temporal as well as spiritual authority upon her seven hills, professes to spread her arms over the whole earth; she arranges her hosts of ecclesiastical soldiers with a perfect pre-

INTRODUCTION. 1X cision ; she rejoices in her army of monks, friars, and priests, married only to herself; she clothes her hierarchy in garments of beauty, and hesitates not to claim and usurp the sacerdotal office. * Absolute and implicit obedience to superiors,” is the motto inscribed on her whole polity; and while she boasts herself in her long array of general councils, her true rest is in the neverdying central authority of her Pope, the successor of the chief of the apostles, the vicar and visible representative of Jesus Christ.

I propose in the following treatise, to take an account of some of the principal features which mark the views and practices of the church of Rome, and to contrast them with what I believe to be pure Christianity ; and in so doing I shall probably have to disclaim many things which are far from being exclusively Romish. These are still adhered to by various classes of believers— by every one in its own way and measure; but they have nevertheless an affinity to the Papal and Ehierarchical system, in that large sense of the terms, to which I have already adverted.

To this task I venture to apply myself for the truth’s sake, but without the least feeling of x : INTRODUCTION.

jealousy or ill-will towards any denomination of my fellow believers. I rejoice in the conviction that there are many vital Christians among all the orthodox denominations, Roman Catholics included, who are drinking of the same Spirit; and who therefore, even though separated from each other in place or circumstances, are “ baptized” by that “ one Spirit, into one body.” And possibly there may be some who disclaim all sectarian distinctions, who nevertheless do truly form a part of the mystical body of Christ. As I am far from confining my view of antichrist to any one denomination of Christians—(I believe antichrist may be found lurking im almost every existing sect)— so I do not hesitate to allow that under a vast variety of names and conditions, Christ has a people of his own, who, as they abide in the faith and patience of the saints, “ shall never perish,” neither shall any man pluck them out of his hands.

I beg it may be understood that I select the Romish church in this discussion, because I consider her to present the extreme case of the dependence of man on man, in the things of God— a dependence which I hold to be the main cause of the extent of her departure from simple Chris-

INTRODUCTION. x1 tianity. I am well aware that many of the distinctive errors of. that church are opposed and rejected by all the Protestant communities ; nevertheless, we ought all to look to ourselves, lest any thing of the same leaven should be found lurking within our own borders. “ Know ye not,” said the apostle to the Corinthian church, and by implication to all Christians in every age,—“ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth im you? If any man defileth the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”’

WE aly LSM SATS TW ba MUAY Sage © ea) a A Ui Bs Bia yhe is 4 PR ¥F at il ey war Wir a N 4 ' P * ' 4 17 ate cee q ‘ ant it cals ¢ s 4% acre ae oy) in i we i i a Fk mia) yt i J 3) « Poe al wee? n JA Age . (SS errs Tan} yey 8 7 Whuste herr vies % ia rr | Oks feu a ) raz F Bh t ‘ ps ee ee ] ay 4 i 2 J i” ‘y . 7 i u He 4 ris i a wD) 4 ey, i my a Y ‘ ‘ Pi A ae 4 ? ¥ “ , a 'f ‘ere it } a ’ ' , i? . Pe fa tk See he 7, ” | 7 A A \ ‘i. “ ‘ mis . = pe | Re ed Re Be ie. ret rie ,, i) sot \ Bee iy ) or : ‘ “ Mr} Pr as 4 sake aa Live ay NEw ny. x: a oe ; : a OU oh, ; ’ +5 , guy cay ci Mee ) #% a I Y 1 ¥; se rt \ ‘ As - 4 iy as ‘j - a e || Ai Lois : I WiLIe3 3 d | eA 2 high 1 ase Tite ‘ 5 ; e % # Ae ' ; U { § ' ‘ ‘ a i ; ‘ .

- | ‘ - , 7 * Utd J " ol ¢ ' 4 os : os aod +e : ean 4 < tay y : uy , : 24 rE LA 4 4 = . : re 6. Whe t 9 ee ial ‘ ‘ — J P , o ‘ p y ‘4 7 er ‘4 4 cae es ‘) tee sy ? e ° ; ie . me wee i Ne ge oi¥ lad @2 Lie 1 Lig ih ‘an F p r 4 a * a bi, ij a .

M nah - iv ' = a ; Las,’ Lt

dts hh.

Oa Sa ar re ga ee A on *, ' 2a Te

x, ‘ > * , . “ah its ah ah A NSH

THE

PAPAL & HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM

COMPARED WITH THE

Religion of the New Testament.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

No one who has investigated the subject can seriously entertain the notion that the canon of Scripture has been arbitrarily fixed by the authority of man. When our Lord Jesus Christ was upon earth, as a teacher and preacher amongst the Jews, it was his constant practice to refer to those books which were regarded by that people to be divine ; and while he never failed to speak of them as such, he made no distinction between one book and another, as it relates to their authority. The

B law, containing the five books of Moses, the Prophets, including the historical books as well as the major and minor Prophets, from Joshua to Malachi—and the Psalms, or Hagiographa, comprising the book of Job, the Psalms of David and others, and all the works of Solomon, were alike sacred in his view—an indivisible collection, from which nothing might be taken, and to which nothing might be added, except from the same immediate and plenary inspiration. ‘This collection of writings—all in the Hebrew language, and all studiously preserved among the Jews from ancient times—and guarded, since the coming of Christ, both by Jews and Christians—is unquestionably the same as that which is now in our hands, and which is universally known and accepted as constituting the Old Testament. ‘These are the writings, to the exclusion of all others, to which the apostle Paul alludes, when he says to Timothy, “ From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Jesus Christ— all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” &c. The writings which comprise the New Testament are individually established to be the genuine work of the apostles and their companions, and therefore of divine authority, by a variety of historical, critical, and internal proofs, which have satisfied not merely the wisdom of the hierarchy, but the good sense of the world. And now at the end of about eighteen centuries from the time when these works were written, there is less dispute, among men, respecting the canon of the New Testament, than in any preceding age of the church. Under the gracious superintendence of a good Providence, the truth of that canon has been established on so broad a basis both of learning and experience, as to be incapable of being ever again shaken. So early as in the days of Eusebius (A.D. 315), the four gospels, the book of Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul which bear his name, and the first epistles of John and Peter, i. e. about five-sixths of the whole volume, (very generally diffused as these writings were, and freely read by all descriptions of people) were ** universally acknowledged” as genuine compositions and Holy Scripture. Some persons, indeed, in those days, doubted the authenticity of the remaining books, viz. the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistles B2 of James and Jude, and the Revelation; while some little shade was thrown over the epistle to the Hebrews, by the uncertainty of the question, whether it was written by Paul.

But all these doubts have long since been cleared away in the public mind of Christendom. It is now generally understood, that the weight of evidence in favour of the Pauline origin of that epistle is not to be resisted. In the mean time, its apostolic date is unquestionable ; and the scriptural wesdom and efficacy both of this and the other excepted books, as contrasted with many spurious productions of the first, second, and third centuries—false gospels, false epistles, and false visions —are plainly such as proclaim them to be, like the other Scriptures, the work of God—given forth by inspiration, and stamped with the seal of direct divine authority.

Let it be clearly understood, that in acknowledging the list of inspired books, both of the Old and New Testament, we do not follow the authority of any particular church, or of any ecclesiastical council. With regard to the Old Testament, we . follow the example, and depend on the authority, of Jesus Christ himself and his apostles. With respect to the New Testament, we abide, in the first place, by its own testimony to the inspiration of its authors. Secondly, we follow the general consent of the Christian public, gradually developing itself from the first century downward ; fixed with wonderful unanimity by the end of the fourth century ; and since that period, unshaken by all the storms of infidelity, and confirmed not only by the labours of a multitude of critics, but by the common judgment and feeling of mankind.

There are few circumstances for which the friends of Christianity ought to be more grateful than the preservation of the text of Holy Scripture. We will not call it miraculous, but we may truly describe it as the special provision of an everwatchful Providence. Who was it that raised up the textual doctors among the Jews, who devoted their livelong hours to arranging the points and accents, counting the letters, and fixing the middle words of the several books of Hebrew Scripture ¢ To whom are we to return thanks for the following important facts—1; that a most accurate version of the New Testament was made into Syriac, so early as the second, or probably the first century ; and that other versions almost equally exact soon followed ;—2; that the early fathers of the church, even when animated with little better than controversial zeal, were induced to rifle the whole volume for quotations, which now, in their abundance and uniformity, form one principal criterion for the settlement of the text; and 3. that copies of this sacred book were multiplied in every direction with so little inaccuracy? Surely we have to thank Him who is the Holy Head of his own church, and whose gracious will it was to bestow upon her a divinely authorized record of doctrines to be believed, and duties to be performed, which should remain unimpaired and indestructible to the end of time. It would be difficult to calculate the amount of learning and industry which have been applied to the inyestigation and settlement of the text of Scripture ; viz. in the rigid and careful application of the three criteria now mentioned—versions, quotations by the fathers, and manuscript copies; and certainly the Kennicotts and De Rossis, as it regards the Hebrew books, and the Mills, Wetsteis, Griesbachs, &c., as it relates to the Greek Testament, have not laboured in vain. So extensively and completely sifted have been the various authorities which apply to the subject, that we may consider ourselves to have now arrived at the final result ; and what is it? Nothing less than this—that both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are cleared from every cloud of doubt; that from amidst a vast multitude of various readings of little importance, they have come forth uninjured, because essentially unaltered—that they have not been deprived of a single historical fact, of a single doctrinal truth, of a single moral precept.

When Paul declared that “ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” he made no distinctions between the different kinds of writing of which the Old Testament is composed. Independently of all considerations respecting the writers—their individual character or condition: of mind, or the degree of consciousness which they severally enjoyed of a divine influence—he simply avers that the writings which they produced were “ given by inspiration of God,”—a view of the subject which is fully substantiated by the example and authority of our Saviour himself. We cannot for a moment doubt that the inspiration of the apostles and evangelists had the same result; and that ther works also—whether historical, prophetical, or didactic— are, like the books of the Old Testament, all divine, and all equal in point of authority. It is matter of satisfaction and thankfulness, that the attempts which have been made by many modern critics to weaken the scriptural view of the inspiration of Scripture itself, the distinctions which some have drawn between part and part, and the notion that inspiration is more or less effective according to the nature of the subject in hand—have very much disappeared. All such wire-drawing has proved itself to be a failure ; and Christians in the nineteenth century are evidently brought to a con- | firmed agreement—that the Holy Scriptures, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation —the actual writings—the bulk, substance, and totality of the book—are, as the early Quakers used often to express themselves, the worps oF Gop.’ |

The divine origin of the Old and New Testament is a point on which the Roman Catholics, and all thesorthodox denominations of Protestants, are (as far as I know) in full accordance. I am not

1 See an excellent work by Gaussin, entitled ‘“‘ Theopneustie,” 1 vol. 8vo.

ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. y aware that infidelity on this subject has ever been encouraged by the authority of the See of Rome ; but it has often sprung up, as the practical consequence of the superstitious additions which have been made under that authority — purely human as it is—to the fabric of scriptural truth. These additions have arisen, as a natural consequence, from those which the Romish Church has made, in her own strength and wisdom, to the Scriptures themselves.

That church, in the first place, has added to the Old Testament a large proportion of the Apocry- -phal books, not merely as works tending to edification, but as actually divine, and as forming part of their canon.! Here then is a ground on which the hierarchy of Rome has found an opportunity of deriving or supporting doctrinal opinions, from a source additional to that of simple, authenticated Scripture.

But a far more dangerous addition to this storehouse of truth has been made under the undefined and comprehensive head of Tradition. Under

1 The Council of Trent included in their canon the books of Tobias, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.

BS this head may be classed first, the voluminous writings of the ecclesiastical fathers during the first six centuries after Christ, containing a variety of strange notions and customs, wholly beyond the scope and limits of Scripture, which have been gradually augmented in their course, and have ultimately found an undisturbed seat in the bosom of the Romish Church. Nor can it be denied that a divine authority, practically tantamount to that of Scripture, has often been claimed, among the members of that communion, for these writings— very much as the Jews have regarded such an authority as belonging to that ocean of fables, the Talmud. In addition however to this new and most cumbrous tera scripta, is the ORAL TRADI- TIoN handed down from age to age—from one generation of priests to another—and even declared by the adherents of the Roman Pontiff, to be of equal authority, that is, to be equally binding on the consciences of all men, with the contents of Holy Scripture itself.

This vast item of tradition gives to the Romish church an undefined scope for superstitious additions both to the creed and practices enjoined in the New Testament. In the mean time, what becomes of the Holy Scriptures themselves ¢ They are, according to the principles of that church, in the keeping of the hierarchy who alone are regarded as holding the true keys to their meaning—alone gifted of God for the purpose of interpreting them. So far therefore, as any parts of them are laid open to the people, it is still with the virtual understanding that for the interpretation of that which they read, they must depend, not on their own free judgment under a divine influence, but on the teaching of their priests, and on the decision of bishops, popes, and councils. But alas, how small has been the extent to which these keepers of the words of the Lord have permitted them to be circulated! How studiously were the Scriptures retained for many centuries in tongues which the unlearned could not read, and how uniformly has the general fact developed itself, that where the papal system prevails, there the Scriptures are not! Exist im the libraries of the priest they may ; but where have they been found in the hands of the people ‘ Since the clergy alone are supposed to have the faculty of understanding them, so it follows that the clergy alone may safely possess or read them.

Whatever is at any time given to the people, “must be doled out in such portions, and with such oral or written additions, as their spiritual lords may deem proper.

With these views and practices, we now proceed to contrast what we apprehend to be simple truth—even the truth of God—with regard to this great subject. Great indeed it is, because fundamental. It is to the foundation on which alone the church is built, that the Scriptures lead us; “ Search the Scriptures,” cried Jesus to the Jews, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of mE.”

The last verses of the sacred volume, although referring to the Book of Revelation in particular, develop a principle which must surely be applicable to the whole divine record—namely, that nothing can be added to the words of the Most High, as therein written, and nothing taken away from them, without involving those who so offend, in the sin of presumption, and in awful peril to their souls. We do not indeed mean to assert that God will make no addition to the pages of Scripture. We pretend not to dive into his hidden designs in this or any other respect; but we know that hitherto he has not done so; and when we take into view the wonderful completeness of the book, we have strong reason to believe that he never will do so. In the mean time, man, on his own authority and wisdom, must abstain from all tampering with the Book of the Lord. He must take nothing from it, lest his own name should be taken out of the book of life ; he must add nothing to it, lest the Lord should add unto him “ the plagues ” which are appointed for those who transgress his will, and rebel against his government. ‘If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” The principle here set forth is, with equal force, insisted on in the Old Testament, “ Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall Ve diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you:” Deut. iv. 2. “ What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it:” xii. 32. “ Every word of God is pure—add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and THOU BE FOUND A LIAR:” Prov. xxx. 5, 6.

I am not one of those who entertain violent prejudices against the Apocrypha, nor should I feel uneasy in contributing to those Bible Societies on the continent of Europe, which circulate the sacred volume with that addition—it being understood that these ancient books are to be read not as divine, but simply for general instruction and edification. The fact is, that they vary exceedingly in their character—some of them contain puerile stories—others record true history ; parts are bombastical and imaginative ; other parts so solid and instructive, that we may surely conclude that the touches of divine grace were resting upon the writers—a remark which particularly applies to the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. But none of these books were written in Hebrew ; they are the production of the last century, or perhaps the last two centuries before the Christian era, when the Hellenistic language, in which they were written, was prevalent in Egypt and Syria, and when the prophetic gift seems to have scarcely existed among the degenerate children of Israel ;! they were never acknowledged by the Jews as of divine authority, or included in their canon ; and are not once quoted in the New Testament, either by our Saviour or his apostles. We must therefore conclude that it is on the whole much safer to exclude them from the Bibles which we read in our families, and circulate in the world; but whether we so exclude them or not, one thing is certain—that their contents cannot be fairly cited as binding and conclusive, in support of Purgatory or any other doctrine. Those who thus cite them are guilty of adding to the words of the Lord, and are in danger of being “ found liars:” see Prov. xxx. 6.

But if itis unsafe to add these ancient Hellenistic books to the Old Testament, what must be the peril to the cause of truth, of ascribing divine authority to the fathers of the first six centuries, whose multitadinous writings the world cannot contain—(in the sense of reading, understanding, and digesting them)—and who have been the

1 Unless indeed some of them may be regarded as of a still later date.

instruments of palming upon the church a vast mass of superstitions, to which the religion of Jesus Christ gives no countenance? These fathers, various as they are in point of talent, character, and mode of writing, do not appear ever to have claimed a scriptural authority for their own works ; and any one who will take the trouble of comparing them with the New Testament, will soon find that in the simplicity, brevity, comprehensiveness, and weight of the latter, as contrasted with the profuseness, bombast, and jejuneness of the former, we are furnished with a powerful evidence of the divine origin of the writings which are really sacred—I mean those of the New Testament; while the others so far as relates to the authoritatwe settlement of doctrine and practice in the church, may be safely scattered to the winds, or for ever sleep, unheeded, on the shelf of the schoolman.

Yet Iam far from denying that parts of these works are worthy of an attentive perusal, and that much advantage may arise from observing the sense in which the fathers—generally Greeks themselves—were accustomed to cite: the words of the Greek Testament: their writings afford imporee tant critical aids, and some sound theological instruction; but that they do not flow forth from the well of inspiration, themselves afford abundant internal evidence. Those who are the most accustomed to dive into them, will be the best prepared to acknowledge, that whatever of piety and truth any of them may breathe, (so far as they are conformed to the doctrines and precepts of Scripture, ) they are, as a whole, undoubted part and parcel of the cumbrous, complex works of man !

If we disclaim the addition to the Bible of the works of the fathers which, with all their faults, are litera scripta, and therefore liable to the check of a close, scriptural scrutiny, how much more evidently does it become us to make a Christian stand against that undefined and undefinable something which glides down, unperceived in its course, (though manifested in its unwholesome fruits,) from generation to generation, — from spiritual father to spiritual son—to the end of time—I mean oral tradition! ‘ The truth and discipline of the Catholic church are comprehended both in the sacred books, and in the traditions which have been received from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself, or of his apostles, and which have been preserved and transmitted to us by an uninterrupted chain and succession.” So declared the Council of Trent early in the sixteenth century, and so aver the true friends of the Papal system (under whatsoever guise or profession they may be acting) in the present day.

In order to take a just view of this subject, we must first examine the passages of Scripture which speak of tradition in a favourable point of view. We know that our Saviour communicated many things to his disciples in private, which they were afterwards to declare upon the house top; and the apostles committed the doctrine which they preached, to their children and followers in the truth. ‘Thus Paul not unfrequently alludes to those matters which he had himself received of the Lord, by divine inspiration, and which he had delivered to the churches; and sometimes he calls them by the name of traditions.!. ‘* Now I praise you, brethren,” said he to the Corinthian Christians, “ that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (in the margin, as in the

Greek, traditions ) as I delivered them to you:”

' wapadocets.

1 Cor. xi. 1. Again, to the Thessalonians,—* But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth; whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle:” 2 Thess. ii. 15; comp. ui. 6. By “ traditions,” in these and other passages—i. e. matters handed down or delivered to the churches—the apostle evidently denotes the doctrines and precepts of Christianity.