The people's right defended...

Front matter

0^ vP.

0^

0^ w^s s

Preface

The substance of this little volume was prepared without the most distant intention of presenting it to the public in its present form. It was originally published, a few months since, in numbers over the signature of <'G.'' in the 'SSouthern Religious Telegraph,'' published at Richmond, Va.

Solicitations from several sources have again brought these numbers before the public, revised and somewhat enlarged, to which is now added the "Introduction,^^ and Tillotson's Sermon on Transubstantiation.

If this volume should be the humble means, under God, of inducing any under the influence of Romanism, to assert, and firmly to maintain, with a proper Christian spirit, their unalienable right to read and study for themselves the sacred scriptures; or of preventing any from increasing the hazard of their salvation in any way, the object and prayers of the Author will be fully answered

As an humble pioneer, and as an unworthy servant to the Bible, in those sections of our country where the people's right to read and search the scriptures, is neither wholly understood nor fully enjoyed, this little volume

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE ''AMERICAN

BIBLE SOCIETY," by

THE AUTHOR.

Philadelphia, Dec. 17th, 1830.

Some of the authorities referred to in the following pages, are given as quoted by Chillingworth, Stillingfleet, Barrow, and others, whose learning and veracity stand unimpeached.

Table Of Contents

Page.

The Introduction, 5

Chap. I. Supremacy of the Pope, - - - 19

II. Exclusive Salvation. - - . - 35

III. The FACT of withholding the Scriptures, 39

IV. Same subject continued, - - - 50 V. The PROPRIETY of withholding the Scriptures, 60

VI. Same subject continued, - - - 79

VII. Infallibility of the Church of Rome, - 99

VIII. Same subject continued, - - - 124

IX. Transubstantiation, - - - 151

Tillotson's Discourse, 167

Introduction

The importance of an acquaintance with the Romish Controversy is now beginning to be more justly estimated among those who are set for the defence of the truth, than it has been for a long time. When we look at the late movements of the ''Holy See" in reference to our beloved country; when we remember that the Tyrants of Europe, viewing Papacy as the most successful instrument that could be employed to crush the liberties and ensure the dovvnfall of this happy people, would eagerly aid in the propagation of Popish principles throughout our land; when we look at the vigorous and systematic exertions now making by that church, from Maine to Florida, and from the Atlantic to the farthest western settlement; and when, in connection with this, we look at the state of society and the condition of the people in those countries where this church is established, or has a superior influence; the importance of a correct and intimate acquaintance with Romish principles and Popish policy, rises in magnitude equalled only by the preciousness of civil and religious liberty, and the salvation of immortal souls. I could not present this subject in a more striking light than by quoting the following extract from a review of Blanco White's Letters on Catholicism, by the Rev. Ashbel Green, d.d. ll.d. in his able "Mvocate^^ for November, 1826 :

''For more than a century past, (says Dr. Green,) the controversy between Papists and Protestants has been

INTRODUCTION.

but little agitated— little, in comparison with what had taken place in the two preceding centuries. The cause of this cessation of arg-uing on the points litigated so ariientlj by the Protestant reformers and their opponents, is not obscure — Argument on both sides had been exhausted, and proselytes, in any considerable numbers, could no longer be made. The habits of education had generally fixed both Protestants and Papists in the faith of their fathers; and the influence of both was so bounded, not only by moral causes, but also by the character, and establishments, and enactments of states and kingdoms, that any such changes as were witnessed in the time of Luther, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, were no longer to be expected.

''Within a few years, however, the great and interesting changes which have had such a mighty influence on the political state of the civilized world, and which have materially altered the whole aspect of society in a great part of Europe and America, have already given some animation, and are likely, ere long, to give much more to the long dormant controversy. Popery has received a rude shock both in the old world and the new; and it is now mustering all its force, and putting forth all its energies, and all its artifice, to recover the ground it has lost; and it is so favoured and fostered by secular power in Europe, as to assume an appearance truly formidable. The present occupant of the papal throne, with talents superior to many of his predecessors, seems to possess a full share of their spirit and zeal. He has renewed the order of the Jesuits, denounced Bible societies, encouraged and patronized a most splendid jubilee, with all its mummery of pardons and indulo-ences, exerted all his influence to stimulate the exertions of his agents even in Protestant states, and has already sent a pretty large sum of money to the United

States, to support missionaries and to aid popish institutions.

''In these circumstances, it certainly behooves Protestants to look warily about them; to observe attentively the posture and manoeuvres of their adversaries; to see tliat their arms of defence are in good order; and to be in all respects prepared for a new conflict. That conflict, we do verily believe, is at hand. To speak without a figure, we are fully persuaded that the Popish controversy must, and will be speedily renewed, not only in Europe, but in our own country; and that our young Theologians will need to study no subject of controversy more carefully than tliis, and our churches and people to be warned of no danger, more than that to which they will be exposed from popish artifice and seduction.

''It is our happiness to live in a land which admits of no religious establishment, nor of any persecution, of a civil kind, for conscience sake. In this we do most unfeignedly rejoice. If by a wish we could impose civil disabilities, or restrictions of any kind, on the Roman Catholics, or on any other sect, that wish sj:iould not be formed. We believe it to be as contrary to the spirit of true Christianity as to the civil liberty which is the glory of our land, that any form of religious faith should be more favored than another by secular authority. ^^ Truth has the best chance for a triumph, when she is left to the exercise of her own weapons — reason, argument, and experience. In our humble judgment, the Roman Catholic Religion would drop all its frowning aspect on the peace of society in Britain, if there were no established church in that country. The author of the work before us, does indeed assert it to be an "indubitable fact, that sincere Roman Catholics cannot con-

INTRODUCTION.

scientiously h^ tolerant ;^^ and it therefore might be argued, that we ought to guard by law, against their obtaining an ascendancy in the United States; lest, in that event, they should destroy the religious freedom which we so highly prize. But we have really no apprehensions on this subject. Suppose it to be as Mr. White asserts, (and we cannot refuse to admit that he is better acquainted with the genuine spirit of Popery than we are,) still we are satisfied, that any attempt to impose civil restrictions on the Roman Catholics, would do infinitely more harm than good. It would indicate that Protestants were afraid to trust their cause to the influence of truth alone. For ourselves, we have no such fear,— Give us a fair field of argument, and we ask for nothing more; and with this, we are confident that our country has nothing to dread.

But while we are opposed to all persecution, we are equally opposed to indifference and a misnamed charity, in relation to this important mr.tter. We question not that there have been, and now are, many individuals of real piety in the Roman Catholic communion; and yet we conscientiously believe that Popery is the ''Man of sin," of the New Testament. Taken as a system, it is corrupt in the extreme, and dangerous to the souls of men, beyond what can easily be described. It is therefore not to be expected that those who thus regard it, should not do every thing which they lawfully may, to prevent its prevalence and to unmask its delusions. We are bound to this by every principle and every consideration, which should have influence with us as friends to ''the truth as it is in Jesus." We are not to be told that this is bigotry and narrow-mindedness; and that all Christian sects would better take care of themselves and let their neighbours alone. Will the Romanists

INTRODUCTION. y

do this? No — they will ^'compass sea and land to make one proselyte." And truly they cannot consistently act otherwise, while they believe, as they do, that there is no salvation out of the pale of their church. Self defence, therefore, demands from Protestants the counteraction of the efforts of Popery, and the exposure of its arts and its abominations; and still more imperiously is it demanded by a regard to the everlasting well-being of their fellow men. He is unworthy of the name of a Christian who can witness attempts to propagate sentiments which he sincerely believes, are calculated to lead men to perdition, and not resist such attempts, and make every exertion in his power, to prevent the adoption of such sentiments. It should indeed be always recollected that genuine christian zeal is entirely a different thing from acrimony, reviling, and slander; and that a good cause will not gain, but lose, whenever anger, or ill temper, or exaggeration is substituted in pleading it, for facts and arguments. We are not to hate those whom we believe to be erroneous. But it is perfectly consistent with wishing them well, nay, it is a part of benevolence itself, if rightly understood, to expose theij. errors, and to prevent to the utmost the mischief which they seek to effect. This therefore, according to our ability, we are determined to do fearlessly^ and yet we trust charitably. — We say charitably, for true charity requires us to love our neighbour as ourselves; and we cannot do so, if, as we have said, we do not endeavour to save him froaa ruinous error; we cannot even love the propagators of error as we ought to love them, if we neglect when we have opportunity, to show them distinctly wherein they are wrong — wherein they are acting injuriously both to themselves and to others. "

With regard to the exposure of Popish errors and su-

b2 perstitions, though it is clearly the duty of those who are the guardians of the truth and the purity of the church, to make this exposure on all suitable occasions, yet there exists in the minds of Protestants, of the present day, a strange and unaccountable squeamishness on this subject. Illiberality of the blackest kind, and a want of charity wholly unpardonable, is by Protestants^ attributed to that preacher or writer who attempts to exhibit to the world the corruptions and abominations of the Romish church; you may write and preach as much against the corruption of all other denominations, as you please, and even those whose creed, or church order you attack will be disposed to let you pass without censure; but say a word against the Church of Rome, and you are at once stigmatized as illiberal and sectarian. Yes, Roman Catholics may write and preach what they please against Protestants of all denominations, they may denounce us all as worthy of hell, (purgatory being too good for such arch heretics;) they may anathametise us from Sabbath to Sabbath as they actually do, and'declare salvation impossible for any of us — -and it all displays, no want of charity, no illiberality in them! Such sickly, spurious liberality as this, should find no place among those who believe the church of Rome to be the ''mother of Harlots,'' and the Pope, the ''man of sin." Let the person and property of every Papist, be as sacred as ours, but let his religious creed and principles be subject to the same investigation, and the same scrutiny: let them be secured in the full enjoyment of every privilege both civil and religous, but let those who differ from them in religious opinions be permitted, without censure and the charge'of illiberality, to expose those errorsinthe doctrine and practice of the Romish church, which ajBTect so seriously the privileges of the people and abridge so dangerously the right of conscience. We ask no more from fellow Protestants, than what we freely grant to all, both Protestants and Papists, viz. the right of entertaining and freely expressing our opinions on their creed, without incurring, in its legitimate exercise, the charge of illiberality or sectarian feeling. We complain not of the numerous periodicals conducted by Papists for the avowed object of exposing and condemning the heresy of all who reject their creed. We seek no coverfor the truth as we hold it^ we shrink from no investigation of the creed which we profess; and we call no man illiberal or uncharitable who subjects our religious creed and principles to the severest scrutiny and to the closest examination; and surely it is ungenerous in Papists, and no less partial and strangely inconsistent in Protestants, to raise the cry of persecution against those, who subject the Romish creed and principles to the same scrutiny and examination.

There is a very popular consideration urged with gi'eat earnestness by Papists on the minds of those who are ''halting between two opinions"— whether to become a Papist — or remain a Protestant. It is this : that in as much as Protestants admit the possibility of salvation in the Romish Church, and as Papists utterly deny the existence of such a possibility out of it, it is the safest to be a Romanist; and on this ground some have abandoned the religion by which their fathers were conducted to heaven, and have connected themselves with the Church of Rome. ''According to this principle," observes the learned Archbishop Tillotson, writing on this very subject, "it is always safest to be on the uncharitable side^ and yet uncharitableness is as bad an evid'Cnce, either of a true christian, or a true church, as a man would wish. "* This popular argument so indus- * Archb. Tillotson's Work, vol. I. p. 126.

triously used by Papists, may be thus stated in its strongest light: both Protestants and Papists unite in admitting that those in communion with the Romish Church may be saved, but only Protestants admit that those in communion with their churches may be saved, therefore it is safest to belong to that church in which all parties agree that there is salvation. I cannot give a better answer to this argument than that already given by Archbishop Tillotson above quoted. ''For answer to this," says the learned Archbishop, ''I shall endeavour to shew, that this is so far from being a good argument that it is so intolerably weak and sophistical that any considerate man ought to be ashamed to be caught by it. For either it is good of itself and sufficient to persuade a man to relinquish our Church, and to pass over to theirs j without entering into the merits of the cause on either side, and without comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both the Churches together, or it is not. If it be not sufficient of itself to persuade a man to leave our Church, without comparing the Doctrines on both sides, then it is to no purpose, and there is nothing got by it. For if upon examination and comparing of Doctrines the one appear to be true and the other /«/5e, this alone is a sufficient inducement to any man to cleave to that Church where the true Doctrine is found; and then there is no need of this argument.

" If it be said that this argument is good in itself without the examination of the Doctrines of both Churches; this seems a very strange thing for any man to affirm, TTiatit is reason enough to a man to be of any Churchy whatever her Doctrines and Practices be^ if she do but damn those that differ from her^ and if the Church that differs from her do but allow a possibility of salvation in her Communion.

*'But as they who use this argument pretend that it

INTRODUCTION.

is sufficient of itself, I shall shew the M^eakness of the principle upon which this argument relies; and that is this, that whatever different parties in religion agree in, / is safest to he chosen. The true consequence of which principle if it be driven to the head, is to persuade men to forsake Christianity, and to make them take up in Ijie principles of natural Religion^ for in these all Religions do agree. For if this princijjle be true, and signify any thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the several parties in Religion differ; because that only is safe and prudent to be chosen wherein all agree. So that this argument, if the foundation of it be good, will persuade farther than those who make use of it desire it should do; for it will not only make men forsake the Protestant Religion^ hut Popery too ', and which is much more considerable, Christianity itself.

''I will give some parallel instances by which it will clearly be seen that this argument concludes false. The Donatists denied the Baptism of the Catholics to be good, but the Catholics acknowledged the Baptism of the Donatists to be valid. So that both sides were agreed that the Baptism of the Donatists was good, therefore the safest way for St. Austin ^ltlA otk^r Catholics (according to this argument) was to be baptised again by the Donatists, because by the acknowledgment of both sides Baptism among them was valid.

" But to come nearer to the Church of Rome, Several in that Church hold the personal Infallibility of the Pope^ and the lawfulness of deposing and killing Kings for Heresy to be de fide^ that is, necessary Articles of Faith, and consequently, that whoever does not believe them cannot be saved. But a great many Papists though they believe these things to be no matters of Faith, yet they think those that hold them may be saved, and they are generally very favourable towards them. But now, according to this argument^ they ought all to be of their opinion in these points because both sides are agreed tliat they that hold them may he saved; but one side positively says that men cannot he saved if they do not hold them.

'' St. Paul acknowledged the possihility of the salvation of those who huilt hay and stubhle upon thefoimdation of Christianity^ that they might he saved, though with great difficulty, and as it were out of the fire. But now among those builders with hay and stubble there were those who denied the possibility of St. PauPs salvation and of those who were of his mind. We are told of some who built the Jewish Ceremonies and observances upon the foundation of Christianity, and said that unless men were Circumcised and kept the Law oj Moses they could not be saved. So that by this argument St. Paid and his followers ought to have gone over to those Judaizing Christians^ because it was acknowledged on both sides that they might be saved. But these Judaizing Christians were as uncharitable to vSt. Paul and other Christians, as the Church of Rome is now to us, for they said positively that they could not he saved. But can any man think that St. Paul would have been moved by this argument, to leave a safe and certain way of salvation for that which was only possible, and that with great difficulty and hazard? The argument you see is the very same, and yet it concludes the wrong way^ which plainly shews that it is a contingent argument^ and concludes uncertainly and by chance, and therefore no man ought to be moved by it.

''If this argument were good, then by this trick a man may bring over all the world to agree with him in an error which another does not account damnable, whatever it be, provided he do but damn all those that do not hold it^ and there wants nothing but confidence and uncharitctbleness to do this. But is there any sense, that another man's boldness and want of charity should be an argument to move me to be of his opinion? I cannot illustrate this better, than by the difference between a skilful Physician and a Mountebank. A learned and a skilful Physician is modest, and speaks justly of things: he says, that such a method of cure which he has directed is safe; and withal, that that which the Mountebank prescribes may possibly do the work, but there is great hazard and danger in it; but the Mountebank^ who never talks of any think less than Infallible cures^ (and always the more Mountebank the stronger pretence to Infallibility) he is positive that that method which the Physician prescribes will destroy the patient, but his receipt is infallible and never fails. Is there any reason in this case, that this man shall carry it merely by his confidence? And yet if this argument be good, the safest way is to reject the Physician'^ s advice and to stick to the Mountebank^ s* For both sides are agreed, that there is a possibility of cure in the Mountebank"^ s metliod, but not in the Physician^ s; and so the whole force of the argument lies in the confidence of an ignorant man.

'^ Again, this argument is very unfit to work upon those to whom it is propounded: For either they believe we say true in this, or not. If they think we do not, they have no reason to be moved by what we say. If tliey think we do, why do they not take in all that we say in this matter.^ Namely, that though it be possible for some in the Communion of the Roman Church to be saved, yet it is very hazardous; and that they are in a safe condition already in our Church. And why then should a hare possibility^ accompanied with infinite and apparent hazard, be an argument to any man to run into that danger?

''Lastly, this argument is very improper to be urged by those who make use of it. Half of the strength of it lies in this, that we Protestants acknowledge that it is possible a Papist may be saved. But why should they lay any stress upon this? What matter is it what we Heretics say, who are so damnably mistaken in all other things? Methinks if there were no other reason, yet because we say it, it should seem to them to be unlikely to be true. But I perceive when it serves for their purpose we have some little credit and authority among them."*

It is undoubtedly every man's duty, who has ability and capacity for it, to endeavour to understand the grounds of his religion, for the better any man understands the grounds and reasons of those doctrines which he professes to believe, the more firmly will he be established in the truth; the more resolute will he be in the day of trial; and the better able to withstand the arts and assaults of cunning adversaries, and the fierce storms of persecution. And on the contrary, that man will soon be moved from his stedfastness, who never examined the grounds and reasons of his belief: when it comes to the trial, he that has but little to say for his religion, will probably do and suffer as little for it.

"I have often wondered," says Archbishop Tillotson, ''why the People in the Church of Rome do not suspect their Teachers and Guides to have some ill design upon them, when they do so industriously debar them of the means of Knowledge, and are so very loth to let them understand what it is that we have to say against their *Archb. Tillotson's Works, rol. 1. p. 125.

Religion. For can any thing in the world be more suspicious, than to persuade men, to put out their eyes, upon promise that they will help them to a much better and more faithful Guide? If any Church, any Profession of Men, be unwilling their Doctrines should be exposed to Trial, it is a certain sign they know something by them that is faulty, and which will not endure the light. This is the account which our Saviour gives us in a like case; it was because mens deeds were evil that they loved darkness rather than Ught, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light; neither cometh he to the lights lest his deeds should be reproved: But he that doeth the truth cometh to the lights that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.^^'^ * Archb. Tillotson's Works, vol. 1. p. 233.

Chapter 1. Supremacy Of The Pope

The Pope of Rome claims to be the vicar of Christ, the supreme head of his church upon earth, and the successor of Peter. This is a high and important claim, and should, therefore, rest upon the most indubitable foundation. It is a vital and cardinal point in the Papal system, and if supported by truth ought to be acknowledged by the whole world; but if not, it should be abandoned by those who are its advocates. To an examination of the merits of this claim, we shall now direct the reader's attention.

The supremacy of the Pope is argued from his being the successor of Peter. Here two difficulties present themselves, the one is— that there is no good evidence that Peter ever was at Rome. It certainly does not ap« pear from scripture; indeed, there is nothing in scripture which would lead to such a supposition. Paul wrote one Epistle to Rome, and five from Rome, yet he makes no mention of Peter being there, and in his Epistle to the Coll. iv. 11., after naming several, adds 'Hhese only are my fellow workers, unto the Kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. " Peter was not at Rome when Paul said " at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me."* He was not there just before Paul's death, who writes to Timothy that all the brethren did salute him, and naming many of them he omits Peter.t There is no evidence from scripture that he ever was at Rome; and it is far from being

' 2 Tim. iv. 16, I? Tiip,. iv, U%

*9 probable that he would have visited heathen Rome and have said nothing about it, and have given no account of his labours there ^ and as the evidence of scripture is negatively against his being there, the burden of proof is upon the shoulders of those who assert the fact. But admitting he was there, still there is no good evidence of his ever having been Bishop of Rome. Here then you will perceive are two points to be proved. It is not enough that it be shown he was there, but it must be incontestibly proved ihdii he was Bishop of Rome,

The only shadow of proof is that from Eusebius, who states that he presided at Rome twenty-five years. But Eusebius professedly gives the whole of his statement on the authority of Irenseus who flourished in the second century.* It is ultimately from Irenaeus that we learn any thing of the early history of the Roman See, and he gives no such statement that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, or that he handed down his divine prerogative, (whatever that might be) to his successors in that diocese, t On the contrary he tells us that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, jointly founded the church at Rome— - and when thus founded they jointly delivered the Episcopate of it to Linus. '^ Fundentes igitur et instruentes beati Apostoli (Petrus et Paulus) Ecclesiam (Romanam, ) Lino episcopatum administrandse ecclesiae tradiderunt. Succedit autem ei Anaclutus, etc."i Peter and Paul are certainly represented here as both and equally engaged in the performance of certain acts, viz: founding a church and delivering the episcopate of it to another, and if so, they did it jointly. The word jointly, therefore, as used in the free translation given above, does not refer to the manner in which the authority passed from them to Linus; but to the manner in which the

* See Eusb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 2, 4. lib. v. c. 5, 6.

-(■See Fab. DiflP. Rom. p. 258. tlren, adv. Haer lib, iii c. 3.

SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. SI

Apostles acted in delivering that authority; namely, they did not deliver it singly but jointly, for surely the conjunction which connects Paul with Peter in the performance of this work, is a copulative, and expresses a joint action. Faber says that with respect to either of the two co-founders ever having been Bishop of Rome, Irenaeus is totally silent: And he understands Irenasus as saying that these Apostles acted in this matter in virtue oiih^iv joint authority.

It is worthy of note, says Faber, that, in the Aposto-^ lie Constitutions^ the person who appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome, is said to have been St. Paul. Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46. This statement, though it varies from the more full account given by Irenaeus, yet does not absolutely contradict it. For, if Linus were appointed the first bishop of Rome by Paul and Peter, he was doubtless so appointed by the authority of Paul; though Paul, in transacting the business, did not act singly hwt jointly. Yet the circumstance is remarkable: for since the name of Peter could be wholly omitted in an account of the foundation of the Roman church, and since the consecration of Linus could have been nakedly ascribed to another person^ such a circumstance clearly shews, how little stress could have been laid in the early ages upon the imagined primacy of Peter and his alleged Roman successors. On the supposition, that the Roman church was jointly founded hy Peter and Paul, and on the additional supposition, that the sentiments of the early ages respecting the primacy of Peter corresponded with the sentiments of modern Latins, it is evident, that, in common parlance, though Linus would often be said to have been simply appointed by Peter, he would never be said to have been simply appointed by Paul. The language of th^