A doctrinal catechism...

Front matter

k 4

<o

-*.

Preface

Discussions on the various questions of religion have ever been^ and still are, matters of inevitable necessity, because Christianity and its dogmas have ever been, and still are, impugned by those victims of passion, prejudice, and error — the schismatic, heretic, and infidel. The true minister of Jesus Christ is thus compelled to make religious controversy an important part of his studies, as it is only by this mean he can, with the help of God's grace, bring back these unfortunate wanderers to the fold of Christ. If angry feelings are sometimes engendered by these discussions, the fault lies with those who first raised the standard of rebellion against the authoritative teaching of the lawful pastors, whom Christ commissioned to feed his lambs and his sheep, with the bread of life and the Word of God. To elucidate truth, is the object of free discussion ; and to all who are properly qualified for the task, ample scope should be given. Catholics, as regards their doctrines, court publicity ; because they are fully aware, the more these are tried and examined, the stronger will be the conviction of their truth in the mind of the sincere inquirer. Of this, ample proof will be found in the multitude of late conversions, — conversions-, be it observed, not of the vulgar and illiterate, but of the brightest ornaments of the age, — not of tire interested and worldly, but of men who proved themselves ready to

4 PREFACE.

sacrifice every worldly advantage for the sake of conscience and truth, — conversions, not of the victim of passion, as is the case when a stray Catholic becomes Protestant, but of men whose minds are pure and their hearts chaste, whose high and spotless morality is beyond all suspicion. Such are the men, who, bursting the fetters in which they had been hitherto bound, and tearing to pieces the thick veil of early prejudice by which the Protestant world is blindfolded, have boldly dared to act upon the Protestant principle of examining for themselves, and, having made that examination, not without hearty commendations of themselves to heaven, have, of late, added to the glory of the Redeemer by their piety and learning, and, by their numbers, extended the pale of his true Church.

With many Protestants it is vain to argue ; their preconceived notions of Catholic doctrine are such, as to prevent the infusion of the smallest portion of Catholic truth. Their teachers have been for three hundred years employed, not in refuting the true Catholic doctrine, but in inventing calumnies against, and publishing misrepresentations of Catholicism, and then amusing their audiences with a refutation, not of the Catholic religion, but of these absurd Protestant forgeries, and " ingenious devices," which they themselves have fraudulently palmed upon the public as the genuine doctrines of the Church of Rome.

Even with those who do know the rules of discussion, and whose minds are imbued with something like honest fairness, controversy will be endless, if the Scripture alone be appealed to. That Divine Book does not and cannot explain itself, and, accordingly, each disputant will interpret to suit his own views ; hence the bitter discussions, and interminable contradictions, observable

PREFACE.

among all those sects who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church. Tertullian, in his Book of Prescriptions, points out the proper method of refuting all heresies. He tells them to give proofs of their mission, — opposes to their novelties, the traditional doctrines of the Apostolic Churches, — and points to their jarring and contradictory systems, as invincible proofs that they are teachers of error. Thus, without any appeal to Scripture, had the first reformers, been asked, Whence come ye ? from whence have ye derived your mission ? they would have looked very foolish^ for to this question they could give no reply. They were not sent by any lawful pastor ; — they had no mission from any Christian Church ; — they and their novelties came fifteen hundred years too late to have any connection with the Apostles. In thus setting up as preachers, without any mission, they outraged the common sense of men. Christ himself, Moses, and the Apostles, preached new doctrines, but they treated men as rational beings, — they proved they were sent by God by the most evident and astonishing miracles ; but the reforming ministers never wrought even one miracle to prove to their unfortunate followers that they were sent by God, or to stamp upon their new system the seal of heaven.

These self-commissioned men railed against tradition, because it condemned their novelties ; but had they been asked to prove, without the aid of tradition, that even the very Bible, of which they boasted so much, was the Word of God, they would have been much embarrassed ; for without the traditional argument, no man can prove the Bible to be God's Word. Hence, the very first principle of the Protestant Creed— the authenticity, divinity, and integrity of the Bible — rests solely on the authority of tradition ; and, consequently, if, as they maintain, tradi-

1*

PREFACE.

tional be only human doctrines, their whole creed 13 merely human, for its first principle, upon which all their other 'doctrines are grounded, rests solely, even according to themselves, upon the authority of men. Those who talk of the Bible as the only rule of faith, would do well to make this matter a subject of serious meditation ; if they do, they will ask themselves, How can this be, since even the authenticity, integrity, and divinity of the Bible, can be proved only by a reference to tradition ?

The heresies of modern times are as productive of sects and divisions as those which appeared in the days of Tertullian; they are daily spawning new religions, as perplexing and pestiferous as the parents from which they spring ; and thus will they continue, shooting off in every direction, no matter how preposterous or absurd, until their very absurdity will force the pious and reasoning portion back into the bosom of the Catholic Church, and drive the thoughtless and vainly-wise section of them into the broad, but dark and hopeless, path of infidelity.

On the subject of religious controversy, numerous works of deep research and intrinsic merit have of late issued from the press. Most of these, however, are so diffuse and expensive as to render them useless to many Catholics and Protestants, who, though anxious in their search after truth, have neither time nor education to enable them to read, nor money to procure, elaborate and expensive publications ; others, again, are so compendious, and the arguments so abridged, that, when put into the hands of a superficial Protestant, they fail to produce conviction. Some others, in fine, there are, the scope of which is rather to instruct Catholics in the faith and practices of their religion, than to disabuse the Protestant mind of its prejudices and its errors. Among these works of real talent and merit, something seemed to the writer

PREFACE.

of the fallowing pages to be still wanting — viz. : an epitome of controversy in a concise and cheap form, comprising the principal arguments on the various questions most commonly controverted, combining perspicuity with brevity and cheapness, that it might be within the reach of all Catholics who are called to give a reason for the faith that is in them, and of all sincerely inquiring Protestants, whose occupations and circumstances preclude the possibility of their having recourse to more learned, more voluminous, and expensive works.

Whether this desideratum be supplied by the following little work, the public will soon determine. The plan and a portion of the groundwork are taken from a small controversial treatise by Father Scheffmacher, a German Jesuit, who held the chair of controversy at Strasburg about a century ago. It was at first the intention of the writer to give only a translation of Scheffmacher's Catechism, but, after a careful examination of it, he found some important articles treated with such brevity, that it was necessary to remodel and extend them, while others of vital interest were scarcely touched at all ; indeed, such were the changes and additions which the writer was obliged to make, that the present may be considered an almost entirely new work. As the object of the writer is to do good, and not to acquire fame, he acknowledges his obligations, in some instances, to several Continental and some English Divines ; and trusts that an indulgent public will find, in the solidity of the matter, an apology for all defects in manner and style. He also takes this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to the eminent Catholic prelate to whom the work, for the sake of security, was submitted ; and feels assured, that nothing will be found in it unworthy of his Lordship's patronage. If, in fine, this publication promote the cause of

8 PREFACE.

religion and truth ; — if, by being put into the hands of the Neophyte, it lighten the burden of his brother clergymen in the matter of controversial instruction ; — if it aid in dispelling error, — in carrying conviction to the mind, — in bringing back to the unity of the one fold some of the many who have wandered from it ; — the writer will consider his labors amply rewarded.

Contents

RISE AND PROGRESS OF PROTESTANTISM.

Chap. i. Nature and author of Protestantism, p. 15. Chap, ii. Causes of Luther's new Creed, p. 17. Chap. iii. Luther required to retract by Cardinal Cajetan, p. 19. Chap. iv. Luther judged by the Universities of Paris, &c.,p. 21. Chap. v. Luther cited by the secular power, p. 23. Chap. vi. Luther's mode of supplying his Church with priests, p. 26.

Chap. i. God not the author of the change of religion, p. 28. Chap. ii. Luther's language to the Emperor and the Pope, p. 30. Chap. iii. Luther's doctrine not of God, p. 32. Chap. iv. Luther's schism not brought about by God, p. 34. Chap. v. Means used by Luther not from God, p. 36. Chap. vi. What then are Luther's followers obliged to ? p. 38.

Chapter I

Question. What is Protestantism ?

Answer. A new religion, invented and propagated by a man, named Martin Luther.

Q. In what year was Luther born ?

Q. Where was he born ?

A. In Eisleben, of Prussian Saxony.

Q. Of what religion were his parents ?

A. They were Catholics, as were all his ancestors.

Q. At the time Luther was born, what was the religion of all Europe ?

A All believed what the Catholics believe at the present time.

Q. Was Luther himself a Catholic for any time ?

A. He was a Catholic until his thirty-fifth year.

Q. What was his state of life ?

A. He was a monk of the order of discalced Augustinians.

Q. As such had he made religious vows ?

A. At the age of twenty- three years, he made vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Q. Was he bound to keep these vows ?

A, Without doubt, since he made them after mature reflection, and of his own free will ; because the Prophet says, (Ps. xlix :) " Pay thy vow T s to the Most High ;" and God himself says, (Num. ch. xxx :) " If any man make a vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath, he shall not make his word void, but shall fulfil all that he promised/'

Q. Did Luther obey this command of God by keeping his vows ?

A. No ; he violated all the three ; he apostatized, — he married Catherine de Bore, a nun, like himself under vows, and he utterly disobeyed every ecclesiastical authority.

Q. Was this man in reality the founder of the Protestant religion, and the first of that sect that ever appeared in the world ?

A, Most certainly ; for no minister, no congregation, no body of Divines professing Protestant doctrines, was ever heard of until his time.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this ?

A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion of Christ ; because, if the Church of Christ required reformation, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character — an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer — for that purpose.

Chapter II

Q. What induced Luther to attack the ancient Catholic faith and invent a new creed ?

A. Pride and jealousy. Pope Leo having granted an Indulgence, Luther's pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.

Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven by this pride and jealousy ?

A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences itself.

Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or avarice of individual Catholics ?

A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that under pretence of reprehending abuses, he assailed the true faith on the subject of Indulgences.

2 #

Q. What was his next step ?

A. He posted on the gates of the Church of Wittemburg, ninety-five articles, which he wrote, and which contained many things not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church.

Q. Were these articles refuted ?

A. They were' and with much ability, by some Catholic Theologians, to whom Luther replied with a haughty insolence unworthy of a Christian.

Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther make in 1517, during these disputes ?

A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing but what was conformable to Scripture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the Holy See. (T. 1. Ger. Edit. Gen. p. 12.)

Q. What did he write to Jerome, Bishop of Bi andenburg ?

A. That he wished to decide nothing himself, and that he wished to submit all his doctrines to the Church. (Ibid, p. 54.)

Q. What did he write to Pope Leo in 1518 ?

A. That he would listen to that Pope's decision as to an oracle proceeding from the mouth of Jesus Christ. (Ibid, p. 58.)

Q. What did he promise to his religious superiors ?

A. That he would be silent, if his adversaries were placed under the same restraint.

Q. What inference do you draw from aU this ?

A. That he was either a hypocrite who did not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which he impugned, since otherwise he could not conscientiously promise silence and obedience.

Q. What other consequences do you draw ?

A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, jealousy — a disobedient hypocrite — was not the person to be chosen by God to reform abuses, if any such existed.

Chapter III

Q. What took place at Augsburg between Luther and Cardinal Cajetan ?

A. The Cardinal required of him, that he should retract his errors, which Luther refused, appealing at the same time to the most celebrated Universities of Germany, and to that of Paris, and pledging himself most humbly to submit to their decision. (Ibid, p. 119 and p. 14.)

Q. Did he stand by that appeal ?

A. No; lie appealed a short time after to the Pope. (Ibid, p. 122.)

Q. Did he abide by this second appeal ?

A, No; he next appealed "from the Pope ill-informed," " to the Pope well-informed/' (Ibid, p. 205.)

Q. Did he stop even here ?

A. No ; he then appealed to a General Council. (Ibid, p. 351.)

Q. Did he abide by this resolution to submit to the decision of a General Council?

A. No ; at the Diet of Worms, he declared flatly that he would not submit his doctrine to any Council. (Ibid, pp. 448, 450, 452.)

Q. What do you conclude from such conduct ?

A. In the first place, that Luther must have been extremely fickle to appeal to so many Judges, and to abide by the decision of none. Secondly, that he knew his cause was bad and his doctrine false, since he would not submit it even to the best judges. Thirdly, that he must have been brimful of sinful pride and obstinacy, since he preferred his own single judgment to that of the whole Christian world.

Q. But did not Luther promise to abandon his errors, if any one would prove them such from Scripture ?

A. Yes ; but this was only an artifice to enable him more freely to propagate them ; because he well knew that the Scriptures may be wrested into any, or every meaning ; that he could give them any sense he pleased, as the Mormons, the Millerites, and other strange sects do at the present day : — the Scripture is made to teach all sorts of contradictions.

Q. What was his real object in this subterfuge ?

A. He wished to impose his monstrous errors on the public, as truths bearing the sacred stamp of Scriptural authority. Had he been sincere in his appeal, he would have said : — I shall leave it to the Church to decide whether my doctrine is conformable to the Scripture or not.

Chapter IV

Q. What judgment did the Universities, to which Luther appealed, pronounce upon his doctrine ?

A. They condemned his doctrine as false and heretical. (Ibid, p. 539.)

Q. What Universities did so ?

A. The Universities of Leipsic, Cologne, Louvain, and Paris.

Q. Did Luther abide by their decision as he had promised ?

A. No; on the contrary, he poured forth a torrent of invectives and insults against them ; he called the University of Paris " the mother of errors/' " the daughter of Antichrist/' " the gate of hell." (Ibid, p. 548.)

Q. What was the judgment of the Pope to whom Luther appealed, and whose decisions he promised to receive, as if they came from the mouth of Christ himself?

A. The Pope published a Bull, condemning forty-one articles of Luther's doctrine.

Q. What does the Pope say in that Bull ?

A. That he had done every thing he could to reclaim Luther, but that all his paternal cares and advices had been unavailing. He gives Luther sixty days to retract, and orders his works to be formally burned at the end of that period, should he persist in his errors.

Q. Did Luther submit ?

A. No ; he now renounces the authority to which he had appealed ; he writes against the Bull of his chief Superior, whom he had vowed to obey ; he denounces the Papal decision as the decision of Antichrist, (Ibid, p. 345;) he publicly burns the Bull, along with the book of Decretals. (Ibid, p. 353.)

Q. Had Luther previously written, in the most submissive terms, declaring that he was willing to cast himself at the feet of his Holiness ?

A. Yes, (Ibid, p. 58 ;) but the moment the Pope opposed him, he changed his language, declaring that not only the Bull, but the Pope himself should be burned. (Ibid, p. 553.)

Q. Had Luther not written, a little before, that his preservation or destruction depended entirely on the absolution or condemnation of his Holiness ? (Ibid, p. 53.)

A. Yes ; but he now declares that men must take up arms against the Pope, the Cardinals, and Bishops, and wash their hands in the blood of these dignitaries. (Ibid, p. 60.)

Q. Had he not written, before this time, that the Pope and the Catholic Church were the highest spiritual authority on earth ? (Ibid, p. 144.)

A. Yes ; but he now teaches, that none but those who oppose the Papal authority can be saved. (Ibid, p. 553.)

Q. What do you now think of Luther s conduct?

A. I can discover nothing in it but the spirit of inconstancy, doubt, error, and revenge, without even the slightest mark of the spirit of God.

Chapter V

Q. What did the secular power do to suppress the rising heresy ?

A. The Emperor Charles V. cited Luther to appear before the Diet of Worms, and sought to reclaim him by the mildest means.

Q. What reply did Luther make to the order of the Emperor ?

A. He replied, that from the wording of the order, one would suppose the Emperor to be either a maniac or a demoniac. (Ibid, p. 460.)

Q. Why was not Luther confined, to prevent him from corrupting others, and from exciting disturbance ?

A. He had received the assurance of a safe-conduct, and the civil authorities could not break their promise. When, however, the term of the safe-conduct had expired, the Emperor proscribed Luther as a sectarian, cut off from the body of the Church.

Q. Whither did Luther then retire ?

A. To the castle of Wirtemburg, where he wrote the most false and pernicious works.

Q. What was the effect of these zoorks, in which he spoke of nothing but " evangelical liberty?"

A. These works produced disturbances, sedition, and amongst other evils, the German War of the Peasants, who committed every sort of excess, declaring that the rich had no exclusive right to their property, that every thing should be held in common, because in the 2d chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all property was common amongst the first Christians.

Q. Did other divisions and schisms soon appear amongst the Lutherans ?

A. Yes ; each disciple of Luther thought he had as good a right as his master to expound the Scripture according to his own peculiar whim ; — Carlostad, Zwinglius, Calvin, Muncer, Schwencfcfeld, were of this opinion. They interpreted for themselves, denounced their master, and set up religions of their own.

Q. Did the thing called " religion," invented by Luther, continue thus to give rise to new and different sects ?

A. Yes ; every year gave rise to a new spawn of sectarians, — a short period produced thirty-four different sects ; and even to this day, the religion of Luther is as prolific of sects and sectarians, as the putrid carcass is of insects or vermin. So true is it, that when we once abandon truth, there can be no end to our wanderings in the mazes of error ; that when we once break the moorings which bind us to the rock of truth, by the adoption of a false principle, such as that of private interpretation, we are only the prey of endless, ever- varying, erroneous human opinions, — tossed to and fro on a wide ocean of contradictions and contrarieties, — to-day on one tack, to-morrow upon another, — certain of nothing, but ultimate shipwreck on the rock of infidelity, or the quicksands of heresy and schism.

Q. What lesson do you learn from this portion of Luther's conduct ?

A. That the man who wantonly disobeys all authority, both ecclesiastical and civil — the man who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the purpose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and propagating evident heresy and schism — cannot possibly be the ambassador of heaven.

Chapter VI

Q. What means did Luther resort to for the purpose of supplying his new church with priests, seeing that no bishop could, or would ordain any of his followers ?

A. He invented a new doctrine on that subject, a doctrine never known in the Church till his time.

Q. What was that doctrine ?

A. That all Christians — men, women, and children, even infants — were truly and really priests, and that nothing was wanting to them but presentation to a cure. (Ibid, pp. 64, 336, 369.)

Q. Upon what did he found this unheard-of doctrine ?

A. Upon that passage of St. Peter, " You are a royal priesthood." " St. Peter/' he reasoned, " addresses this to all Christians, therefore all Christians are priests/' He might equally well have proved, from the same passage, that all Christians are kings ; since St. Peter declares that they are all royal. Hence, as all Christians are confessedly not kings, so neither are they all priests. Hence, again, all the followers of Luther should be satisfied, that their pretended pastors are only wolves in sheep's clothing, who entered the fold not by the door but over the wall, since their pretended orders and mission are founded only upon a passage of Scripture evidently perverted to suit a purpose.

Q. What was Luther s next step after abolishing the true priesthood amongst his followers ?

A. He next abolished the true Sacrifice.

Q. What did he allege against the sacrifice of the Mass ?

A. Various things which he learned from the devil, as he himself declares.

Q. How does he express himself on that subject in his book on the Mass ? (Tom. vi, p. 82.)

A. " Having awoke," he says, " about midnight, the devil commenced a dispute with me on the subject of the Mass."

Q. What did the devil say to him ?

A. " Listen, most sapient Doctor," said the father of lies : " during fifteen years you have said Mass almost every day. What if all these acts have been only so many acts of idolatry ?"

Q. Did Luther hearken to the paternal advice of his sable director ?

A. He listened so well, Jhat he allowed himself to be persuaded that the devil was right and he wrong, so that the enemy of man came off victor ; and though Luther in the same book calls the devil the most artful and lying deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice rather than that of the Church.

Q. What think you of all this ?

A. One can hardly tell at which to be most astonished, — at the open and brazen avowal of Luther, or at the awful blindness of those who follow a master, who, by his own account, received his training and instruction in the school of Satan.

THE PROTESTANT PRETENDED REFORMA- TION IS NOT THE WORK OF GOD.

Chapter I

Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the change in religion brought about by Luther is the work of God ?

A. No one can believe it, unless he be utterly ignorant of the true nature of religion, and very unlearned in matters of history.

Q. Why do you make this answer ?

A. Because, in the first place, the author of the Reformation is not a man of God ; secondly, because his work is not the work of God ; thirdly, because the means which he used in effecting his purpose are not of God.

Q. Why do you say Luther is not a man of God ?

A. Because he has left us in his works abundant proof, that if God saw need for any reformation in his Church, such a man as Luther would not be selected to carry God's will into effect.

Q. What have you to blame in Luther's works ?

A. They are full of indecencies veiy offensive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoonery well calculated to bring religion into contempt, and interlarded with very many gross insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian charity and humility, to individuals of dignity and worth.

Q. Passing over his indecencies in silence, give us a specimen of his buffooneries and insults. What does he say to the King of England, replying to a book which the King had written against him ? (Tom. ii, p. 145.)

3*

A. He calls the King " an ass," " an idiot./* " a fool," " whom very infants ought to mock."

Q. How does he treat Cardinal Albert, Archbishop and Elector of Mayence, in the work which he wrote against the Bishop of Magdeburg ? (Tom. vii, p. 353.)

A, He calls him " an unfortunate little priest, crammed with an infinite number of devils."

Q. What does he say of Henry, Duke of Brunswick ? (Tom. vii, p. 118.)

A. That he had " swallowed so many devils in eating and drinking, that he could not even spit any thing but a devil." He calls Duke George of Saxony, " a man of straw, who, with his immense belly, seemed to bid defiance to heaven, and to have swallowed up Jesus Christ himself." (Tom. ii, p. 90.)

Chapter II

Q. Was Luther s language more respectful, when he addressed the Emperor and the Pope ?

A. No; he treated them both with equal indignities ; he said that the Grand Turk had ten times the virtue and good sense of the Emperor, — that the Pope was " a wild beast," " a ravenous wolf, against whom all Europe should rise in arms."

Q. What do you conclude from Luther's insolent, outrageous, and libertine manner of speaking ?

A. That he was not the man to be chosen by God to reform his church ; for his language is the strongest proof that he was actuated, not by the spirit of God, but by the spirit of the devil.

Q. May not his party say, that they care little about the manner of the man, if his doctrine be true, — that it is not upon him, but upon the word of God, they build their faith ?

A. If the Protestant doctrine be true, then God used Luther as a chosen instrument to reestablish his true faith ; but no reasonable man can possibly believe the latter ; therefore, neither can any reasonable man believe that the Protestant is the true faith.

Q. May it not be objected that there were individual pastors in the Catholic Church as worthless as Luther ?

A. Yes ; but all the pastors of the Catholic Church were not so at one and the same time, whilst Luther, at the time we speak of, was the first and only teacher of Protestantism. Besides, Christ himself gives an unanswerable reply to the objection, (Matth. xxiii:) "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten in the chair of Moses ; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do, but according to their works do ye not." Again, some Catholic pastors may have been bad men, but still they were the lawful ministers of God, having succeeded to lawfully commissioned predecessors ; but Luther stood alone, he succeeded to none having lawful authority from whom he could derive a mission. In fine, whatever may have been the lives of some vicious Catholic pastors, they taught nothing new, their teaching was the same as that of the best and holiest ministers of the Church. Hence, there was no innovation in matters of faith, or principles of morality. But Luther was the first to teach a new doctrine, unknown in the world before his time.