Papalism versus Catholic truth and right

Front matter

.

ChapJl^ Copyright No......

SkelL^Z..

PART II. Preliminary, as to Topics Considered, etc. , . . . 67-70

I. Holy Scripture, the Word of God, .... 71-81

II. The One Catholic and Apostolic Church, . . 82-97

III. The Society of Jesus, Commonly Known as the

Jesuits, 98-111

IV. Idolatry of the Church of Rome ; Cultus of

the Virgin Mary, etc. , 112-125

V. Purgatory, Satisfactions, Indulgences, . . . 126-131 VI. Romish Transubstantiation : the Catholic

Church's Real Presence, 132-150

Sacrifice of the Mass ; Auricular Confession ; Celibacy of the Clergy (with some Closing

Review and Synopsis of Part II., ....... 160-162

List of Councils ; the Great Heresies ; Chief

Early Fathers and Writers, 163-165

PART I.

Historical and Exegetical. The Papal System in its Claims and Pretensions.

PRELIMINARY.

Some few words of explanation seem to be necessary at the outset, so as to place the reader and the writer on fair terms of relationship and accord, each with the other. This will be best accomplished, it is believed, by making it plain just what is proposed and expected to be done, in the present contribution towards a right understanding and settlement of a difficult and momentous question.

The system of the Romish religion is what is herein meant to be dealt with, in its principles and claims, its practices and results. If its principles be sound, if its claims be valid, if its practices in accordance therewith be honest and truthful, then its results cannot well be anything but good and commendable. If its principles and claims are largely false, deceptive, and odious, then its practices and results must necessarily, in great measure, be of the same character. Of course, under the Constitution and Laws of the United States, the Romish Church is at liberty to work freely and actively in support of its claims and purposes. As a body, its teachers are zealous, earnest, diligent, in striving to gather into their fold all whom they are able to reach. They keep a bright outlook as to politics, public moneys, free schools, etc., and they are fully alive to the importance of judicious care, in not presenting at all offensively the harsh dogmas of Trent or the Vatican (1870), such as, the right to demand absolute submission to the " infallible," supreme head and ruler of all Christian people in the world, and also the right to chastise " heretics," and such like wretched creatures — just so soon as they are able.

With the men who have been drilled in and adopted these principles and claims of the Romish standards, in our day, and are trying to carry them out wherever possible, we have no present contest. Reluctance, and more or less of hesitation as to extreme dogmas, and the like, are now and then expressed by some of these ; but the strong hand of power at Rome speedily puts down everything of the kind. We are not making any attacks on persons, neither are we imputing evil motives to papists. Facts and Truths alone are sought for ; and nothing less will suffice. There are, doubtless, good and sincere men in the popish hierarchy, who really do believe — or at least are confident that they believe — everything to which they have solemnly sworn allegiance, however contrary it may be to the plain words of Holy Scripture, and the testimony of the Catholic Church.

Still further, it is not here questioned that there are good men and good women, in large numbers, who accept what is set forth in the standard Romish books (such as manuals, catechisms, books of devotion, etc.) for teaching the laity, as if it were, as is strongly asserted, authorized by the Bible, the ancient Catholic creed, and the witness of the first ages. They accept also the doctrines and practices laid down by the Romish Council of Trent in the sixteenth cen-

PAPAL SYSTEM TO BE DEALT WITH. 11

tury, embodied in the creed of pope Pius IV. (1564), and also by the latest astounding defiance of the Christian world (outside of Rome and the Jesuits), put forth by the Vatican Council and Decrees, in 1870. Even further yet, they avow their confidence that " the mother and mistress of all churches," as she loftily proclaims herself, does rightly, and even with divine authority, impose these intolerable burdens, under pains and peril of eternal damnation, upon all those who, stigmatized as " heretics" and " schismatics," refuse to become slaves of papal tyrants, and are true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and members of the One Holy, Catholic Church.

The purpose had in view, then, is (with God's help and blessing), to deal very plainly with the papal system, in its various ramifications and workings. We shall endeavor to do this as concisely as possible within restricted limits. We shall try to call things by right names. A lie is a lie, whatever name one gives to it, and so we shall call it. Equivocation, half-truths, amphibology of all sorts, mental reservation, and the disgusting stuff written down in the books of H. Busenbaum, A. Liguori, P. Dens, and the like, are essentially lying, and so may properly be termed. Forgery, out ' and out, as the Decretals of early popes, the Donation of Constantine, etc., falsifying the texts of ancient authors and the writings of early fathers, palming off paltry miracles, so called, are what they are, and to name them simply will, for the most part, be sufficient.

" Absolute obedience, it is boldly declared, is due to the pope, at the peril of salvation, not alone in faith, in morals, but in all things which concern the discipline and government of the Church. Thus are swept into the papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole systems of government, prevailing, though in different degrees, in every country of the world. Even in the United States, where the severance between Church and State is supposed to be complete, a long catalogue might be drawn of subjects belonging to the domain and competency of the State, but also undeniably affecting the government of the Church ; such as, by way of example, marriage, burial, education, prison discipline, blasphemy, poor relief, incorporation, mortmain, religious endowments, vows of celibacy, and obedience. In Europe the circle is far wider, the points of contact and interlacing almost innumerable. But on all matters respecting which any pope may think proper to declare that they concern either faith or morals, or the government or discipline of the Church, he claims, with the approval of a Council undoubtedly ecumenical in the Roman sense, the absolute obedience, at the peril of salvation, of every member of his communion."

Wm. E. Gladstone.

PAPALISM VERSUS CATHOLIC TRUTH.

Chapter I

Planting the Church in Rome : St. Peter's Connection THEREWITH.

1. Attention is here first asked to the claim set up, by the makers of the Romish creed, as respects St. Peter's supposed connection with the Church of God in Rome. Observe, then, that, as a matter of fact, it is wholly unknown by whom, and at what date, the Gospel was proclaimed, for the first time, in the imperial city. Jews, an ever active, busy race, were quite numerous there before the Advent of our Saviour in the Holy Land. Some of these, if not many, went to Jerusalem, year by year, partly on business, partly or chiefly, to attend the great feasts of the ancient Jewish Church, viz., passover, feast of weeks, feast of tabernacles. Pentecost, the second named, was one of these high festivals, and it occurred just after our Blessed Master's ascension into heaven. St. Luke makes note of the fact, in his glowing account of the wondrous scene, when the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostolic band, and they were all filled with divine affluence, " and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts ii.

1-4). The astonished multitude, made up of native inhabitants and visitors from " every nation under heaven," now heard, in their several languages, the gladsome news of salvation to be offered to the whole family of man.

2. It is quite natural that the " strangers of Rome" (Acts ii. 10) sojourning for the time in the Holy City, some being native Jews, others proselytes, should be amazed at hearing themselves addressed in their own mother-tongue by the inspired Apostles ; yet, it cannot be doubted, we think, that some of these were part of the great harvest of three thousand souls gathered into the Church on that momentous festive day of Pentecost, A.D. 33 or 34. We do not know how soon it was that they returned to their Italian home, and carried with them the inspiriting intelligence of Prince Messiah's coming, and of His gracious promises of redemption, and happiness, and peace, through His atoning sacrifice on the cross ; but the interval was probably not long.

3. Some years, doubtless, were spent by these, and also by others, on returning from the great annual feasts, in spreading abroad among their neighbors and kinsfolk the news from Jerusalem which they brought with them ; as well as in providing for meetings of Christians, Gentiles equally with Jews, and for public worship and reading and studying Holy Scripture, in order to be assured, (like the Bereans of old) " whether these things were so," or not. Who it was that took the earliest steps in organizing the Church in Rome, and from whom it was that Christians secured the regular, authorized ministry of a bishop and other

THE CHURCH OF GOD 1ST ROME. 15

clergy, no one indeed can certify. Just at what date Linus (named by St. Paul, 2 Tim. iv. 21), or whoever was first bishop, was consecrated for his high office, is wholly uncertain. So too, the date of Clement (also highly spoken of by St. Paul, Phil. iv. 3) cannot be affirmed positively. Bishop Pearson gives it A.D. 69-83. Others place the record of his death at A.D. 100. Clement notes, in his Epistle to the Corinthians (§§ 5, 6), the tradition of the deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, in a time of grievous persecution, wherein great numbers of godly men were sacrificed. The Emperor Claudius banished Jews (and Christians too, of course) from Rome, A.D. 52 ; but on Nero's accession, two years later, they were allowed to return. St. Paul wrote his great Epistle to the Romans in A.D. 57 or 58, and notes cordially the high rank which the Church of God in Rome held at this date. He himself reached the imperial city in A.D. 61, and during two whole years — though " in bonds" — was actively engaged in helping to build up the Church of our Lord there. *

4. Now, as to St. Peter's direct connection with the imperial city, it is to be noted, that there is no certainty that he was ever in the capital of the empire at all. Tradition, as generally credited, makes him to have gone to Rome towards the close of his life, and

* See Bishop Lightfoot's excellent article on the " Epistle to the Romans" (Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible' '). He states that " the Greeks formed a very considerable fraction of the whole people of Rome," and that, so far from the Church consisting mostly of Jewish converts, it was in reality, " a mixed Church of Jews and Gentiles, the latter perhaps being the more numerous."

to have suffered martyrdom there. This is tradition, be it remembered ; it is not certainty, respecting a point of the gravest moment. Popish writers try to make out, by means of bold assumptions chiefly, that St. Peter not only went to Rome, but was also bishop of that see for some twenty to twenty-five years ; yet no evidence of any value has ever been produced to show that such was really the case. Not only so, but as he was very advanced in age at the time of this pretended episcopate, the story must be regarded as having little or no foundation in fact. It is simply incredible, in view of what we know of the two apostles, that, if St. Peter were in Rome, and at the head of affairs, when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, the noble and courteous apostle should pass over Peter's name and work in entire silence. Though he sends not less than twenty-five to thirty salutations, he nowhere alludes to his brother apostle (A.D. 58). The same remark is true in regard to St. Peter or his labors not being referred to, in any place, in the Epistles written by St. Paul, during his first imprisonment in Rome of two years, viz., Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians (A.D. 62), and 2 Timothy during his second imprisonment by Nero (A.D. 67 or 68). Tillemont, a Romish critic of high repute, makes St. Peter to have served as bishop of Antioch in Syria, about A.D. 36-42. Later on, in the first century, it is reported, by good authorities, that St. Peter visited Babylon on the Euphrates, where there was at this date a large number of Jews and Christians resident, and that he performed the duties of bishop in that city and vicinity for a considerable time. Some critics

WAS ST. PETER EVER IN" ROME ? 17

give the date of his martyrdom, A.D. 6i. His First Epistle contains a salutation " to the strangers scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," sent by " the Church that is at Babylon." * This would bring the date of the Apostle's going to Rome (if he ever did go) as late probably as A.D. 80 to 90. Canon Cook (in Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible") considers it " as a settled point that St. Peter did not visit Rome before the last year of his life." Favorite date of Peter's death (among Romanists) is A.D. 66.

5. Inasmuch as it is of vital importance to the popish cause that what is asserted about St. Peter should be clear and fully proven, the ablest controversialists and critics, among Romanists, have bestowed very vigorous efforts in this line. It is plain to every one, who desires to get at the truth, that, if Romish advocates cannot present satisfactory and convincing proof of what they affirm so confidently, then the whole papal system of doctrine and practice, built thereupon, falls to the ground. If assertion alone were sufficient, if repeating groundless assertions and guesses, century after century, made out their case, then they would be quite safe, and they might manufacture what they pleased into matters of faith and obedience. But assumptions, claims, pretences, and the like, do not suffice. Evidence which ^evidence must be supplied, or Christians, who know their responsibility for their

* Romish writers for the most part hold, that the Babylon here meant is the mystical name for Rome (as in the Apocalypse). The Rheims Hew Testament says, in a note, that Babylon here used is " figuratively Rome/'

souls' care and nurture, will not yield, and " cannot away with." Hence it is, under this pressure, that numerous books have been prepared by skilful, but not over-scrupulous, writers on the papal side, who undertake to show, as far as they are able, by Scriptural argument, as well as by the testimony of the fathers and doctors of the primitive Church, that St. Peter was made Vicar of Christ, Supreme Head of the Catholic Church, infallible, absolute monarch, in Church and State, over the whole world, etc., etc.

6. Let it be admitted, then, if the reader, in view of what is stated on preceding pages, choose to have it so, that St. Peter did actually make his way to Rome, and together with St. Paul gained there the martyr's crown. The question immediately presents itself, what did he do, after his arrival in the imperial city ? Did he oust Linus, or whoever was bishop of Rome at the time, and take the chair for himself ? Did he show, in word and act, what the papists say he was, that he was assuredly, by the Lord's own appointment, the Prince of the Apostles, and Supreme Ruler over the Church throughout the world, during some twenty to twenty-five years, as Jerome, at beginning of the fifth century, is reported as venturing to assert ? Did he, as divinely appointed to this position, prepare a code of directions for his " successors" in office, that so they might set forth and enforce what, ever he saw fit to command them ? Did he define and make clear the " privileges of Peter," and mark out how these were to be taught and observed everywhere ? Is there any evidence, and where is it to be found ? Does anybody really know anything certainly

PRETENDED SUCCESSORS OF ST. PETER. 19

about the matter ? Answers to these and like questions have never been given, or attempted, save in vague guesses, bold declarations that, of course, it is just as they say.

7. A word or two further : Suppose it were true that St. Peter was acting as bishop of Rome in the latter years of his life. Suppose, too, that he gave some instruction (more or less) to the person who was likely to be his successor. What, then, if this were the most that could be asserted ? Is there any intimation, in Holy Scripture, that the Apostles were to have " successors" at all ? Of coarse, it is well known, that, in the case of St. John and St. Paul, no one pretended to take up the work which these, and the others of the twelve, had laid down, with any such wicked pretence as that they were gifted with powers and prerogatives of the departed saints. It is in Rome that this strange work was begun, as time rolled on. It was there that it was taken in hand, centuries afterward, by men who resolved that, as Rome was the imperial city, so the Church in Rome ought to be, and should be, the imperial Church of the whole world. Some pretext or other mast necessarily be put forward, and so it was attempted first, to make out that on St. Peter was conferred the headship and supremacy in the Catholic Church. It took two or three centuries to get this notion into general circulation. Still, there was a great gap even yet to be overcome. As there were no facts or evidence to be obtained out of Holy Scripture, or the history of the Church, assumptions must be made to answer instead. Acting on the pretty fancy that there must he a supreme guide and master in the Church on earth, the Lord and Master in heaven was virtually dethroned, and St. Peter was set up in His place. Still a huge trouble remained, as to " the successors." Assumption is easy enough when one gets used to it. So it was gravely asserted, as ii it were a truism and evidence were unnecessary, that, of course a " visible church" must have a " visible head," and therefore successors, in the shape of popes, were the ones to fill the blanks in ages to come. The Lord and Master never said anything about this pretended necessity of a visible head of His Church here on earth. The Apostles have nowhere asserted such necessity. The one, only Head of the Church is the Son of God Himself in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father. Let the intelligent reader ponder these things, and steadfastly refuse to be put off, or imposed upon, with mere words, however plausible, which have no documents or facts to sustain them.

CHAPTER II. The Gospel Texts claimed by Papists as theirs

1. Romish writers, in their books, well knowing that the Scriptures contain but little which they can use for their purpose, labor especially to get all the help, which they crave, out of three passages of the Gospels, viz., St. Matthew xvi. 18, 19 ; St. Luke xxii. 31, 32 ; St. John xxi. 15-17. We ask the reader's careful attention to a brief, critical examination of the true meaning and force of these records of the Evangelists.

2. ' ' And I say also unto thee, that thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My Church ; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. And 1 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." This passage well deserves to be studied with thoughtful diligence, and we are confident that, if so studied, it will be found to afford very little if any help to the full-blown popish dogma about St. Peter. Let the reader call to mind the occasion on which the Lord spoke these remarkable words. It was just after the Saviour had asked the Apostles, " Who do men say that 1, the Son of man, am ?" and St. Peter, in response to the further question, " But who say ye that 1 am ?" answered for all as well as himself, " Thou art the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the Living God." The Master commended the answer, in the highest terms, as being a special revelation from God the Father in heaven, and thereupon uttered the significant words above given. Now, what do these words really mean ? The Blessed Redeemer calls the apostle Petros, i.e., Rock, and then goes on to declare, that " on this petra or rock," He would build His Church. The question necessarily arises, what does our Lord here assert, by saying that there was a " rock," on which He was about to build His Church ? The " fathers" (as they are usually called), the earliest interpreters of the Scriptures, vary largely in their expositions. Sixteen of these are on record as holding the u rock" to be the Divine Messiah, or Christ, Himself. Nearly fifty (including Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, etc.) give their judgment in favor of the noble confession of St. Peter being the u rock." Some seventeen are of opinion that it was Peter himself, professing the faith. Besides, there are a few of the fathers quoted as holding somewhat different, but not hostile, views on this point. If the Saviour had meant, by " on this rock," Peter in person, and had said, u on thee y Peter, a rock in the foundation with Me, 1 will build My Church," then there would be something on which to base the popish claim ; but He did not say any such words, and there is no valid reason to suppose that He meant any such thing, unless it be held, in accordance with what seems to be a favorite theory and practice of papists, that a perpetual repetition of a pretence for a thousand years does, in course of

MEANING OF PETROS AND PETKA. 23

time, make that to be true which was really utterlydoubtful or false in the beginning.

3. The Romish contention is, that petra signifies Peter ^ and that the Lord here declares, that He purposes to build His Church on St. Peter, who was to become Head of the Catholic Church, and Supreme Ruler throughout the world. Popish folk know, however, to their discomfort, that the interpretation of the promise of building Christ's Holy Church, " on this petra, " is not by any means settled among their most respectable critics and advocates. Neither does it have " the unanimous consent of the fathers.'' About this latter they say a great deal ; but it is more words than anything else, seeing that nobody knows exactly who " the fathers" are, and what is to be understood by the expression " unanimous consent." A papal archbishop in Missouri (Dr. Kenrick) showed plainly, at the Vatican gathering (1870), that there were among the fathers no less than one hundred and thirty-eight who held, that it was St. Peter's " confession of faith" that was meant bj petra, and not Peter in person. As this defiant, fierce assemblage in the Vatican was made up of five hundred or more cardinals, bishops of different sorts, abbots, etc., the Italians being largely in the majority, and consequently able to carry everything they pleased, all opposition to the Jesuits and the pope (who was present) was summarily put down. Of course, Kenrick's view of the passage wherein jpetra occurs was rejected, with an anathema, i.e., curse, added. — Very possibly, the long-delayed Nemesis may reach proud, haughty Rome, at no distant period.

4. It is proper to state, in this connection, that St. Peter was endowed with a u primacy" of some kind among the apostles ; a primacy of personal worth, it may be, of reputation, of order, or the like. He possessed great boldness of spirit, was ever ready to take the lead, was frequently the chief spokesman, and was full of industry and activity. The records in the New Testament prove this to be beyond doubt. The popish contention, however, goes far in advance of this. While St. Peter shows himself, in the Acts of the Apostles and in his two Epistles, to be free from assumptions and magisterial airs, the papists of later days deem such an attitude quite beneath " his holiness, my lord the pope." Every extreme insolence of pretension and claim is coolly asserted by papists, here and now, in these days. They affirm that the " teaching of the Roman pontiff is infallible," though the Romish doctors and teachers are in much perturbation and doubt as to what is really signified by " the infallibility of the pope." Quoting the words from St. Matthew (xvi. 18), they go on to say, that " the holy Roman Church enjoys full primacy and pre-eminence over the whole Catholic Church, received from our Lord Himself, in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is ;" and still further, that this Roman pontiff is " the true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and the see of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error ;" — if any one presume to contradict the Vatican dogmatic decrees, " let him be anathema" (accursed forever !). Add to this the shameless declaration of pope Boniface (A.D.

manning's high papal talk. 25

1300), that "every creature must obey the pope at the less of eternal salvation." Let every one, who wishes to see and know what popery is, and must be, if it can only get the power in its hands once more, ponder awhile over the words of EL E. Manning, D.D., — that papist of the papists in England, — in speaking of " the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes" (1860) ; " the Catholic Church cannot be silent — it cannot hold its peace ; it cannot cease to preach the doctrines of Revelation, not only of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, but likewise of the Seven Sacraments, and of the Infallibility of the Church of God, and of the necessity of Unity, and of the Sovereignty, both temporal and spiritual, of the Holy See. " * Such words as these are among the things " passing strange," in view of the actual feebleness of the pope and Jesuits as to " temporal sovereignty." Yet, even Americans, glorying in their liberty of spirit and freedom of speech and action, as if these could never be taken away, will do well to watch the movements of a power, with its centre in Rome, and reaching out in every direction, so as to reconquer the world of human beings, and reduce all Christian people to absolute submission.

5. It is hardly necessary here to enter into any discussion of the Power of the Keys, and of Binding and Loosing (Matt. xvi. 19), seeing that precisely and fully the same authority was conferred on all the Apostles :

* " The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance.' ' By Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone. In the same volume is to be found Dr. SchafTs "History of the Vatican Council" : New York,

" Verily 1 say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever things ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18). And after the Lord's Resurrection, at that memorable evening interview, " He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John xx. 22, 23). St. Peter never claimed or exercised any privilege in this matter over his fellow Apostles. " We know" (writes Cardinal Cusanus, early in the fifteenth century, an opponent of those striving to exalt unduly the pope) " that Peter did not receive more power from Christ than the other Apostles ; for nothing was said to Peter which was not also said to the others : therefore, we rightly say that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in power."— See Cusanus on the Councils of the Catholic Church, quoted by Dr. Barrow (p. 68).

6. The passage from St. Luke (xxii. 31, 32) next claims attention and study : " And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren" (A. V.). Take note of the full and precise meaning of the original : " Satan hath greatly begged for you (plural, i.e., you all of the twelve) that he might sift you as wheat ; but I (emphatic pron.) made supplication for thee (specially) that thy faith fail not ; and do thou, when thou hast repented and turned back to duty and faith, stablish thy brethren." The last clause in this pas-