Romanism is Not Christianity [1847] - Rice, N.L

8/23/2019 Romanism is Not Christianity [1847] - Rice, N.L. [PDF]

1/395

I n,,(

'V-x.

fi

M I'l">:-V'


2/395


3/395


4/395


5/395


6/395


7/395


8/395

:u .1 1 '.i>iiir^n^=.:':;'-i>ei>-r c:


9/395

ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY:

A SERIES OF POPULAR LECTURES,IN WHICH

POPERY AND PROTESTANTISMARE CONTRASTED;

SHOWING THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE FORMER WITH

BY N. L. RICE, D. dV, '^-^^iX^ ^'PASTOR OF THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CINCW^Alfli /^TOV^ > "^ .

CINCINNATI:WM. H. MOORE & CO., PUBLISHERS:NEW-YORK : MARK H. NEWMAN & CO.

1847,


10/395

A^^fcf^/^"

Entered according to Act of Congress^ in the year 1847, byWILLIAM H. MOORE & 00.

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio.

E. SHEPARD, STEREOTYPER,No. 1] Columbia Street.

MORGAN & OVEREND, PRINTERS,Main Street.


11/395

PREFACE.The controversy between Romanism and Christianity

seems now destined to be the great controversy of the nine^teenth century. In Europe and America, Rome is makingrenewed and vigorous efForts, to regain her lost power; butthe United States is her favorite field of missionary enter-prise. The extent of our territory, the cheapness of ourland, the fertility of our soil, and our free institutions,hold out strong inducements to immigration from Europe.These, with other causes, no less potent, are flooding ourcountry with immense crowds of foreigners, the very largemajority of whom are ignorant and degraded ; and a stilllarger number have learned from infancy to yield implicitobedience to the teachings and the commands of theRoman clergy. This rapidly increasing population isplacing in their hands a tremendous power, which maywell excite apprehensions in the minds of Americans.The Roman clergy, too, would seem to have become the

friends of "popular education^ and are zealously engagedin establishing, in every part of our country, and particu-larly in the great West, permanent institutions for the edu-cation of the youth of both sexes. To aid them in thiswork, large sums of money are annually transmitted bysocieties in Europewhose object it is, to extend the influ-ence of Popery. And, although the clergy disclaim anydesign to interfere with the religious views of Protestantyouths, thus inducing large numbers of Protestants to


12/395

Vi PREFACE.patronize their shools, they do boast, in their letters totheir European patrons, of the number of converts gainedthus from our ranks.The time has come when it is most important thatevery man, who is the friend of true rehgion, or of freeinstitutions, should understand the character of this grow-ing influence ; when Protestants should know what arethe differences between us and the church of Rome ; andon what grounds they protest against her exclusiveclaims. Many intelligent men have been accustomedto regard Poj)ery as a system so full of all manner of ab-surdities and ridiculous superstitions, that it cannot bearthe light of the nineteenth centuryespecially in this en-lightened country. They forget that a large proportionof the population of our country are almost wholly ig-norant of the Scriptures, and of the nature of true re-ligion ; and, consequently, are easily misled on this im-portant subject. The Roman clergy are well aware ofthis state of things. " The missions to America," says theAnnals of the Propagation of the Faith, " are of high im-portance to the church. The superabmidant populationof ancient Europe is flowing towards the United States.Each one arrives, not with his religion, but with his indif-ference. The greater part are disposed to embrace the doc-trine, whatever it be, that is first preached to them. Wemust make haste ; the moments are precious. America mayone day become the center of civilizationand shall truthor error establish there its empire ? If the Protestant sectsare beforehand with us, it will be difiicult to destroy theirinfluence."


13/395

PREFACE. viiRomanism is, indeed, full of absurdities ; but it claims

a venerable antiquity ; its rites are, many of them, impos-ing, and its doctrines, when skillfully set forth by a cun-ning priest, are not without plausibility. Besides, it is areligion admirably adapted to please the carnal mind.Human nature has always been disposed to a religion ofpomp and show, of external rites and ceremonies, a reli-gion which proposes to save by human merit, rather thanby divine grace, and which does not severely condemnloose morals. Such a religion is that taught by Rome.Who, then, can wonder that it gains converts, especiallywhen it finds access to the uninformed and susceptibleminds of the young.The present unhappy controversy in the Episcopal

church, should be instructive to other denominations. Inthat church has arisen a party, not of ignorant persons, butof men of learning, who are really Papists, and who arerapidly going over to Rome. The reason of this state ofthings is doubtless to be found in the fact, that that churchwas never thoroughly reformed. Not a few of the evan-gelical ministers of the Episcopal church have discovered,and are now proclaiming this truth, and calling for a com-plete expurgation of the leaven of Popery. But there arefacts enough to show the folly of folding our arms in self-security, under the impression that Popery cannot live ina country so enlightened as ours. Its exclusive claimswill be zealously, plausibly pressed in every part ofour land ; and therefore it is our duty to place an anti-dote, if possible, in the hands of every family and everyindividual.


14/395

viii PREFACE.The following lectures were delivered by the author to

his own church last winter, in the course of his ministeriallabors. The interest they were the means, under God, ofawakening on the subjects discussed, and the desire ofmany who heard them, to see them in print, have inducedhim to prepare them for the press. He is aware that thenumber of books on this extensive controversy is verylarge ; but he hopes the work he now ventures to placebefore the public, may fill a place, and be of some ser-vice to those who are seeking the truth. Almost all theworks he has read on this controversy are either too costlyfor general circulation, and too learned for the mass ofreaders, or devoted to the discussion of only a few ofthe important points of difference between Protestantsand Papists. And most of the publications designed forpopular use, while they state and refute the doctrines ofRome, do not state them in the language of the standardwriters of that denomination, and refer to the authorand the page. Consequently, Romanists deny that theirchurch holds such doctrines ; and the minds of read-ers are left in doubt Avhether there has not been misrepre-sentation: or, confiding in the solemn declarations of im-candid men, they are strongly prejudiced against the verydoctrines the writer is defending.

Fifteen years ago, the author of these lectures was prov-identially located in Bardstown, Ky.^ w^here, at that time,Romanism was the controlling influence. He purchaseda number of the standard works of Romanists, and readthem carefully. A lengthy discussion of the subject, withstrong opposition, made him familiar with the doctrines of


15/395

PREFACE. ixRome, and with the mode of defense adopted by her clergy.The results ofhis studies are now thrown together in the formof popular lectures. The doctrines of the church of Romeare stated in the precise language of the decrees of her gene-ral councils, her catechisms, and her standard authors ; andthe principal arguments relied on for the defense of themare carefully considered. It is often said that it is unfairto charge all the folly and wickedness of the church in thedark ages, upon Romanists of the present day ; that theyhave improved as much as others. This objection, which,though not valid, has much weight with many minds, isobviated by quoting, almost exclusively, works of modemdatesuch as are now read and circulated by Romanists.From these it is easy to prove that Rome is now just whatshe has ever been ; that the increasing light of the nine-teenth century has not yet illumined her darkness.On a subject on which so much has been written by

men eminent for their learning and talents, it is not to beexpected that much, if anything, that is really new, canbe presented. In these lectures, however, if the author isnot mistaken, the manner in which the different subjectsare discussed, will be found somewhat different from thatmost commonly adopted ; and he ventures to think, thatfor popular discussion, it has some advantages. It hasbeen his design, not to say all that might be said on anyone point, but enough to satisfy the sincere inquirer aftertruth.The present volume is designed to present a fair and

tolerably complete outline of the controversy between Pro-testants and Papists. Those who will take the trouble Xo


16/395

PREFACE.give it a careful reading, it is believed, will be at no loss toknow -what Popery is, and to distingmsh between its errorsand superstitions, and the gospel of Christ. In the lecture onthe true churchy it was not the purpose of the author to enter,at any length, into the discussion of the question, whetherthe ordinances, as administered by the Chiurch of Rome,are valid (though some remarks are briefly made, bearingon that point), but rather to enable the inquirer to find thetrue church, and to expose the plausible, but sophistical,arguments of Romanists, in favor of the exclusive claimsof theirs.

For the lecture on Education in Roman Schools^ theauthor bespeaks a careful perusal. This subject, he isconvinced, is practically of the very first importance.The true character and design of Roman schools are notunderstood ; noi are Protestants half awake to the impor-tance of establishing permanent institutions, especiallyfemale institutions, of a character Avhich will bring theminto successful competition with those estabhshed by theRoman clergy.

These lectures have been prepared more hastily thanthe author desired, in consequence of other pressing en-gagementsespecially those connected with the pastoralcare of a newly organized and rapidly increasing church.Such as they are, they are now thrown before the publicin the hope, and with the prayer, that the Head of theChurch will bless them as a means of guarding the mindsof many against the insidious attacks of error, and leadingthem to a knowledge of the truth, as it is contained inthe pure Word of God.


17/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.LECTURE I.

' Efible a Light fo the FeetRight of Free DiscussionCannot defend ourFaith without assailing that of RomanistsRelative Positions of Church ofRome and ProtestantsExclusive Claims of the former, as seen in Decreesof Council of TrentAnathemasStandard Authors quotedInfallibityKey-stone of Roman ArchRule of Faith of RomeStated by BishopHughesBishop MilnerChurch Defined by HughesChurch not reallytheir Rule, but Pope and BishopsProtestant RuleProtestants and Papistsagree on two Points^First Argument against Roman InfallibilityCannotbe Proved by TraditionNor by ScriptureMilner's Doctrine concerningthe Canon, and the Interpretation of ScriptureMarks of the ChurchIm-possibility, according to Milner, of ascertaining whether Church of Rome hasthemImpossibility of joining the Church of Rome without denying herInfalhbilityControversies in Church of Rome disprove her InfallibilityDifferent Opinions concerning her InfallibilityWhere it is LodgedTransalpine and Cisalpine Opinions, as stated by ButlerPractical im-portance of the Question in Dispute-Singular Character of the Contro-versyIt can Never be SettledAbsurd Distinction between Faith andOpinionsAlternative if Pope and Council should DifferControversyconcerning the Pope's Temporal PowerPopes take advantage of theirUndefined AuthorityAcknowledgments of Butler and MilnerDilemmain which Popes are placedChurch Ignorant or UnfaithfulAuthorityof Universities worthlessContradictory Opinions concerning GeneralCouncilsInfallible Definition of General Council necessaryNew Testa-ment silent on this pointThe Doctrine oi Acceptation perfectly IndefiniteInfallibility of General Councils of a New KindNot ScripturalFirstChristian CouncilIts InspirationExcellence of the Bible.II.

LECTURE II.Example of the BereansCommended by LukePrinciples Deduced

Milner's Attempt to Evade the ArgumentMeaning of 2 Pet. i, 19In-fallibility of Rome does not extend far enoughShe is unable to Interpreta large portion of the BibleAbsurdity of her ClaimsHer Infallibilitydoes not extend to Discipline and OpinionsPoints included under theseHeadsTaking Cup from the LaityUnauthorised and presumptuousChange of Sacred OrdinanceMilner's acknowledgment in favor of the


18/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.Protestant FaithCelibacy of the Clergy a Matter of Discipline^Purcell'sdeclaration'Fallible Discipline against the ScripturesThe Pope, in theface of God's Prohibition, Nullifies MarriagePurceil's Position concerningPeter's wifeHis Imputations against the Teachings of GodReeve'sAccount of the Clergy of the 11th CenturyProtestant Ministry neverthus DegradedLaw forbiding Laity to Read the ScripturesIts Presump-tionApostles not Fallible in DisciplineOpinionsWhat they arePer-secutions placed under this headBishop Hughes' Position concerning thePersecution of the WaldensesHis Defense makes the Matter WorsePer-secuting Edicts of 4th Council of LateranBishop Hughes' weak Defenseof the CouncilDilemma in which the Council is PlacedCardinal Bella-mine's Defense of PersecutionProves that the Church has Persecuted,and Justifies itInquisition Established by the PopeStill Cherished atRomeHughes' EvasionPersecution a Matter not of Opinion^ but ofMoralsNothing in the Religion of Papists to forbid the most Horrid Per-secutionsScriptures Quoted in favor of Church Infallibility examinedStrange Inconsistency of the Roman ClergyMatt, xviii, 15; xxiii, ^0;xvi, 181 Tim. iii, 15John xiv, 26 and xvi, 13Fallibility of the ChurchUnder the Old DispensationTraditions CondemnedMil ner's Unsatisfac-tory AnswerChrist's Denunciation of the Jewish TeachingsJewishChurch Rejected and Crucified the Son of GodMilner's Answer ExposedEvils of Church Interpretation greater than of "Private Interpretation."Purceil's Declaration that the Bible is a Dead Letter.35.

LECTURE in.Scribes and Pharisees successors of Moses, yet False TeachersArgu-

ment from Succession InconclusiveUnity of Faith does not prove FaithTrueEvils resulting from Implicit Faith in Fallible MenEvils resultingfrom the Roman RuleCorruption of the Word of God by Human Com-positionsApocrypha Rejected by the Jewish ChurchTestimony ofJosephusAcknowledgments of Bishops Trevern and MilnerDilemmaTestimony of Dr. JahnChrist, and Apostles never quoted ApocryphalBooks, nor charged Jews with UnfaithfulnessApocryphal Books not re-ceived by the Early Christian WritersCatalogue of Melito, Oregen, Cyril,Athanasius, &c., &c.^Not sufficient to prove Theological DoctrinesPlaced in Second Canon till the Meeting of the Council of TrentOldTraditionsMeaning of the Word, as used by the Bible, and by the FathersThe Point in Controversy StatedJewish Church had no Divine Tra-ditions^New Testament affords no evidence in favor of Oral TraditionsProtestants do not Rely on Oral TraditionsUnanimous Consent of theFathersWho are TheyAll FallibleSeveral of them fell into SeriousErrorsDiffered from each other, and from RomeChurch of Rome makes


19/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.New Articles of FaithPapists not permitted to hear God Speak to ThemMilner's Declaration on the SubjectPeople Required to Read OriginalLanguages, &c.Rome cannot Correct her ErrorsAll Roman Catholicsmust Believe and Defend ThemDecision of the Council of Constance con-cerning the Safe Conduct granted John HassContradictory Statementsof Hughes and Reeve-No Faith to bo kept with HereticsSuperiority ofthe Protestant Rule.65

LECTURE IV.Individual Accountability, and the Consequent Right of Free Investiga-

tionFolly and Wickedness of Enforcing Religious Faith by Civil PenaltiesFundamental Principles of Romanism Inconsistent with Liberty of Con-science and Human FreedomThey put the Mind completely in tlie Handsof the ClergyTheir Commands enforced by tremendous Sanctions'Ju-dicial ForgivenessCouncil of Trent and Catechism of TrentKeys of theKingdomUnlimited Power of the Pope and the ClergyGods on EarthTheir Power of a Peculiar KindNothing in their Character to render itHarmlessMany of Them, especially in Roman Countries, grossly ImmoralAvowed Principles of the Roman Clergy with regard to Religious Tolera-tion^Deposition of King JohnBellamine's PrinciplesHughes' EvasionNotes in Rhemish TestamentSentiments of the Belgian Bishops^Dr.Cerothy's AcknowledgmentCouncils of Lateran and Constance decide infavor of PersecutionInquisition recognized by the Council of Trent -Devoti's account of its Origin and DesignMode of Arrest, as stated byD. Antonio PuigblauchStill Cherished in RomeThe Pope and his ClergyResponsible for ItBishop Hughes' Opinion of It Encyclical Letter ofGregory XVIIntolerance in all Roman CountriesPersecutions in theIsland of Madeira^Views of the Roman Clergy of this CountryTheircommendation of the Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVIBishop Hughes'Views of Spanish and Italian IntoleranceThe Objection, that Protestantshave Persecuted, AnsweredPolitical Power of the Roman Clergy of ThisCountryWithering Influence of Popery on the Morals and Prosperity ofCountries where it Prevails.89.

LECTURE V.Christ the only Head of His Church, the Husband, Head, and Foundation^Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, StatedIf true, it must bo very

Clearly RevealedMilner's AdmissionMust be Proved by what Papistscall Private Interpretation of ScriptureAn insuperable Difficulty in theWayInconsistency of RomanismFirst ArgumentQualification andAuthority of Pope Undefined and IndefinableAmbiguous Language ofthe Council of FlorencePractice of the Popes^John, King of England


20/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.and Otho, Emperor of Germany DeposedAlexander VI gave Americato Ferdinand and EmmanuelSecond ArgumentTitles and Honorsclaimed by the Pope, Prove his ApostacyScriptures relied on to proveSupremacy, examinedPeter a Married Man^History^Practical work-ing of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, proves it FalseChurch ofChrist not united under one Visible HeadQuestion, where was YourChurch before Luther?^Answered119.

LECTURE VLRepentance a Change of MindThe Doctrine of Penance StatedCom-

mand to do Penance not in the ScripturesIf we admit the Doway Trans-lation, Penance Required before Baptism Sacrament of Penance not in theBibleTwo of its Parts UnscripturalThe Kind of Confession ProtestantsAdmitDivision of Sins into Mortal and Venial, Absurd and UnscripturalThe Language of Roman Writers Perfectly IndefiniteMoral Code ofRome RottenCalculated to Make Men Dishonest and UntruthfulStolenProperty not always Restored-St. Ligori's Moral TheologyThis Distinc-tion Necessary to Auricular ConfessionAuricular Confession not foundin the Old Testament, nor in theNewMeaning of Keys of the Kingdom ofKeavenTendency and Effects of Auricular ConfessionDeclarations ofLigoriTestimony of Rev. J. B. WhiteOf Waddy Thompson, Esq.Satis-faction StatedDoctrine of ProtestantsNo Temporal Punishment Due toSins ForgivenPriests, Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles Never PrescribedPenancesDoctrine of Satisfaction Contradicts those Scriptures whichSpeak of the Atonement of ChristIf Temporal Punishment Due to SinsForgiven, Due to those Committed before BaptismAbsurdity of the Doc-trineDoctrine of No Practical Advantage, but Calculated to Deceiver-Gives to the Clergy Tremendous Power145.

LECTURE VII.No Condemnation to BelieversTherefore Doctrine of Indulgences and

Purgatory FalseDoctrine of Indulgences StatedPower to Grant In-dulgences not given the ChurchDoctrine Founded on Division of Sinsinto Mortal and Venial, and Temporal Punishment Due to Sins Forgiven,and therefore FalseNo such thing as Superabundant Merits of SaintsNo Counsels, in addition to the Commands of ChristThe most DevotedChristian Fails in the Discharge of his DutyMerits of Christ, though In-finite, are not at the Disposal of the Pope or the ChurchDilemma inwhich Romanists are Placed Conditions on which Indulgences are Granted,and the Use Made of the Doctrine, Prove it FalseBlessed BeadsIn-dulgences Used to Excite Men to Engage in WarTo Build St. Peter's


21/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.To Fill the Pope's TreasuryThe Doctrine a Source of Power to theClergyPurgatoryDecree of the Council of TrentNo Such Place Men-tioned in the BibleThis Doctrine Inconsistent with the Work of the HolySpiritThe Burning of Fire Cannot Produce HolinessPassages of Scrip-ture relied on, ExaminedMoses' Law Prescribes No Sacrifice for the DeadOld Testament Contains No Prayers for the DeadLimbo PatrumDoctrine of Purgatory a Source of Wealth and Power to the ClergyCruelty of the Doctrine175, ^

LECTURE VIU.Lord's SupperIts Nature and Design Stated^Doctrine of Rome Stated^It Involves Contradictions and AbsurditiesContradicts the Testimonyof the SensesNot a Mystery nor a MiracleExamination of Scripture

PassagesScripture Usage'Romanists Interpret only Part of our Saviour'sLanguage LiterallyBread and Wine still called Bread and WineEx-amination of John VIBishop Trevern's InconsistencyThe Changesmade in this Sacrament by the Roman Clergy, Prove their Doctrine FalseTaking the Cup from the Laity and Non-Officiating ClergyAcknow-ledgment of the Council ofTrentReason Given for this Change, examinedThe Roman Clergy by Fallible Discipline change that which was InfalliblyEstablishedImplied Charge of Bishop Milner against his ChurchTheFaith of Protestants most strikingly Illustrated by Administering the Sup-per as it was Administered by ChristThe Roman Faith Requires a ChangeAdditions made to the Lord's SupperThe words *'Soul and Divinity,"added to suit the Faith of RomeRidiculous Directions to CommunicantsThe Doctrine of Rome Proved False by the Worship of the Bread andWineProcessions in Romish CountriesThompson''s TestimonyDoc-trine of the Mass^ further Evidence against TransubstantiationThe Doc-trine StatedIts AbsurdityMystical Effusion of Blood, UnmeaningPurposes for which Mass is said to be Offered, Prove it False^No Priestsin the Christian Church, and therefore no SacrificeNo AltarScripturesspeak of no Sacrifice of Christ, but that on the CrossThis Doctrine aSource of Power and Wealth to the Clergy205.

LECTURE IX.God the only Object of Religious WorshipWorship of Images, Saints,

and Relics, StatedUse of Images and Pictures in the Worship of GodUnlawfulSecond CommandmentIts MeaningOmitted in Romish Cate-chismsCharge made against Pagans lies against RomePicture of Trini-tyRomish Exposition of Second Precept Proved FalseNo Picture orImage of God in Jewish TempleJews led to Idolatry by Brazen Ser-pentsScriptures afford no Precept, Permission, or Example of Worship


22/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS,of Saints or Images'No Saints' Days in the BibleAbsurdity of Prayingto SaintsMiracles wrought at the Tombs of Saints not RealThomp-son's Account of the ChurchMosheim's Account of RelicsMilner's De-fense of the DoctrineÎnspired Men did not thus reason^Superiority ofthe Scripture Doctrine^235,

LECTURE X.INVENTIONS OF ROME.

Efficacy of Ordinances and Ceremonies, a Popular DoctrineSuited tothe Carnal MindDisposition to Multiply Ordinances, Illustrated by Pagan-ism and JudaismThis Error leads Men to Undervalue True Religion andPure MoralityRomish Church more Corrupt than the Jewish Church-Holy Days Unauthorized by the New TestamentConsequent Desecrationof the SabbathAcknowledgment of Bishop TrevornArch-Bishop Ec-cleston's Doctrine Concerning the SabbathExtreme UnctionTrue De-sign of the Anointing mentioned by James-Acknowledgment of the Cate-chism of TrentPrayers of Rome^Litany of the Blessed SacramentPrayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of MaryLitany of the InfantJesusÛnmeaning Repetitions^Holy AshesCeremony of Blessing theAshes, as contained in the Roman MissalHoly Palm, Its VirtuesHolyFireHoly WaterCorruptions of the Ordinance of BaptismApostolicBaptism, Contrasted^Blessed CandlesHoly Medals ÂgnusDei'sTheirWonderous VirtuesCeremony of Blessing Horses at the Convent of St,Anthony at RomeÎmpiety of this Custom-^Bishop Hughes' Defense of ItLegends of SaintsAbsurd Story of St. Philip NeriusMiracle of fhePope's HorseSoul of Theodoric carried to Hell by Pope JohnSt. Peter'sChainsMiraculous Discovery of the Body of Stephen the Proto-MartyrTranslation of the House of LorettoStories concerning St. JanuariusMiraculous Liquifaction of his BloodBreviary full of such StoriesDo theRoman Clorgy Really Believe ThemChurch of Rome, Apostate^267.

LECTURE XLCHUIST HAS BUT ONE CHURCH.

Desirableness of being in Communion with ItRule for Finding the TrueChurchTraditions of no ServiceWe cannot Rely on the Writings ofUninspired Men^Differences among Ramish Historians^The People gen-erally cannot Enter into these ControversiesRomish Catalogues of thePopes Prove NothingThe Question, Where were the Protestant Churchesbefore the days of Luther, Calvin, &c., AnsweredEfforts of the RomanClergy to Blacken the Characters of the Reformers, Waldenses, &c., Un-availingObjection that the Reformers did not Work Miracles, Refuted-


23/395

TABLE OF CONTENTS.True Church must be Discovered by the ScripturesApostohc Church andChurch of Rome, ComparedTheir Organization and OfficersTheir Wor-shipTheir OrdinancesTheir DoctrinesChurch of Rome Excommuni-cates and Anathematizes all who Refuse to Believe her ErrorsShe Re-quires all to Commit IdolatryPosition taken by the Council of TrentReason for Refusing to Recognise the Church of RomeThe Church bycoming out of Babylon did not Unchurch HerselfAnswer to the Ques-tion, How shall We Find the True ChurchUnity of the ChurchUnity ofRome, not Scriptural^Protestant Churches Traced up to the ApostlesBrighter Day in the Future History of the Church293.

LECTURE XILDUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS.

The Rising Generation the Hope of the Church and of the CountryGreat Influence of Teachers, evident from the Design of EducationTeach-ers must Secure the Respect and Affection of their Pupils^Pohcy ofthe Roman ClergyObjections to Roman SchoolsThey Cannot give aThorough Education^Religion and Morals a Forbidden Subject of Investi-gationThese Intimately Connected with other Branches of ScienceNatural Philosophy and AstronomyPhilosophers in Roman CountriesThey Cannot Teach Mental and Moral ScienceMoral Principles ofRomanists Radically UnsoundTheir Effect on the Morals of YouthThe Perfection of Roman Virtue Consists in Punishing the Body, &c.Ac-count of Virgin Rosa, and of AntoniusThe Breviary abounds in suchStoriesEndorsed by Rev. J. ReeveDesecration of the SabbathMoralPrinciples of the JesuitsRoman Schools will not Teach History Correctly^Nor the Principles of Civil and Religious LibertyGovernment of theJesuits, a Perfect Despotism-The Real Design of Roman Schools to makeConverts and MoneyNeglect of Popular Education in Roman CountriesCharacter of St. Joseph's CollegeRoman Schools Adapted to make Con-vertsExclude Protestant BooksConversion of Dr. Riley in GeorgetownCollegeBoasting of PapistsSin of Protestant Parents in Exposing theirChildren thusCharacter of NunneriesDegradation of NunsMillyMcPherson, the Lost Nun; and the celebrated Law Suit in KentuckyLetters of Nuns to their PriestsCapital Error of ProtestantsConclusion319.


24/395


25/395

ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.

LECTURE I.Psalms cxix, 105, " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my

path."

By this language of the Psalmist, we are taught that the Wordof God presents with much clearness the doctrines and duties ofrevealed religion, and consequently, that it can be understood by thesincere inquirer after truth. It is light ; and lightwhen there isan eye to seereveals surrounding objects. He represents him-self as walking through a dark region in a dangerous way, and theword of God as his lamp:the light by which the safe path is clearlyrevealed. In another Psalm he says, " The entrance of thy wordgiveth light." And Paul, the apostle, says, "All Scripture isgiven by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, forreproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness ; thatthe man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto allgood works." These passages of God's word afford a suitableintroduction to the discussion, on which I propose now to enter,of the prominent doctrines of the Reformation.The Reformation of the 16th century is an event of deep inte-

rest to all classes of mento the Christian, to the statesman, andto the friend of free institutions. The Christian looks to it as theperiod when, as once of old, the Bible, found amid the rubbishof human traditions which had been accumulating for ages, beganagain to pour forth its pure light upon the astonished minds of thebenighted people ; when Christianity arose from her long-contin-


26/395

12 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.ued prostration, and began to put on her strength, and to clotheherself in her beautifid garments. Many who make no preten-sions to religion, regard it as the event by which the true princi-ples of civil and religious liberty were developed, and the fetterswhich ecclesiastical and civil despotism had riveted upon thebodies and souls of men, struck off. After the lapse of threecenturies, the principles of the Reformation are still wielding atremendous power over men, and moulding the character of theRiightiest nations on the globe ; and it requires not the spirit ofprophecy to predict, that their influence in years to come is notlikely to |je more circumscribed. The character of these princi-ples, and their effect upon the Christian church and the world,present a subject of legitimate inquiry, a subject replete withvaluable instruction.

It is not a little strange that when we propose to discuss thesegreat principles, many well-meaning persons take the alarm, as ifwe were commencing a species of persecutio?i against RomanCatholics. Far from it. We have no denunciations to hurlagainst persons who may differ from us ; nor do we intend to saya word which can give just ground of offense to any one. Butwe do intend, with all freedom, to discuss the merits of greatpractical principles which exert a mighty influence in mouldingthe character and fixing the destiny of individuals and of nations.It is a self-evident principle, that when there are equal interestsinvolved in any subject, there are equal rights to investigate anddiscuss. Now, I am as deeply interested in the questionforexamplewhether the Pope of Rome is the divinely appointedhead of the church of Christ, as any man on earth ; and so arethe people to whom I preach, and to whom I am most solemnlybound " to declare the whole council of God." Consequendy,my right freely to discuss the subject, is most unquestionable.

But why, one is ready to ask, do you not preach your ownfaith without assailing that of others ? What is my faith on thepoint just mentioned? It is not simply, that Christ is the headof the church, but that he is the only head. Now, Roman Catho-lics claim that the Pope of Rome is the visible head of the


27/395

FREE DISCUSSION. 13church, the vicar of Christ on earth ; and they pronounce us he-retics and rebels against divine authority, because we refuse toacknowledge his claims. We cannot, therefore, defend our faithwithout proving the Pope's claims to be spurious. When a Ro-man priest attempts to prove that the Pope is the head of thechurch, he is as truly chargeable with persecuting me, as I amwith persecuting him in proving the opposite. The charge ofpersecution, in either case, is ridiculous. If the claims of thechurch of Rome are founded in truth, the man who would con-vince me of that fact, would be my best friend ; if they are false,I could do no greater kindness to a Roman Catholic, than to con-vince him of his error.

It is important to the right under-standing of this subject, todefine clearly the relative positions of the church of Rome andProtestant denominations. In doing so, as in all the statementsI shall make in regard to the tenets of the Roman church, I shallquote the decrees of her councils, her catechisms, and her stan-dard authors. I prefer to quote, as far as possible, those authorswho have written in the English language, and are now circula-ted as standard writers, that there may be no dispute about trans-laiions, nor whether the doctrines quoted are now held and taughtby that church. I intend that every intelligent hearer shall beable to understand the force of the arguments I adduce.The claims of the church of Rome will be seen in the follow-

mg decree of the Council of Trent, which met in the 16th cen-tury, and which is regarded by Romanists as infallible: "Inorder to restrain petulant minds, the Council further decrees, thatin matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the main-tenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding in his own judg-ment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own senseof them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held,by holy mother churchwhose right it is to judge of the truemeaning and interpretation of Sacred Writor contrary to theunanimous consent of the fathers, even though such interpreta-tions should never be published. If any disobey, let them bedenounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law."


28/395

14 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.The creed of Pope Pius IV, published after the meeting of theCouncil of Trent, and which was designed to embody the doc-trines of the Council, requires of all who join that church, thefollowing professions: "I acknowledge the holy Catholic andApostolical Roman church, the mother and 7mstress of allchurches ; and I promise and swear true obedience to the RomanBishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles,and Vicar of Jesus Christ." Again: "I most truly admit andembrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all otherconstitutions and observances of the same church. I also admitthe sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holymother church has held, and does holdto whom it belongs tojudge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures ;nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise than accordingto the unanimous consent of the fathers."Such are the high pretensions of the church of Rome. She

claims to be the divinely appointed expounder of God's revela-tion to man, and forbids, under severe penalty, any one to under-stand that revelation otherwise than as she directs. And everyone of her dogmas is enforced by an anathemaa destructivecurseupon the man who ventures to deny its infallible truth.I give a single example. The first canon of the Council ofTrent on transubstantiation, reads as follows : " Whoever shalldeny, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there aretruly, really, and substantially contained, the body and blood ofour Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and,consequently Christ entire,, but shall affirm that he is presenttherein only in a sign, or figure, or by his power let him beaccursed.^^ With a similar anathema is every one of the doc-trines of Rome guarded. And when the Council was about toadjourn, the presiding cardinal, the Pope's legate, exclaimed:''Anathema to all heretics!" and the Bishops responded, "Anath-ema! anathema !"Now, if these claims of the church of Rome are founded in

truth, and these anathemas divinely sanctioned, what a conditionwe Protestants are in ! But, if her claims are spurious, and,


29/395

CLAIMS OF ROME. 15consequently, her anathemas unsanctioned by Christ, what shallwe say of those who thus presume to "lord it over God's heri-tage," and curse men for not abandoning Christ to follow them IWill not their anathemas recoil on their own heads ?These pretensions of the church of Rome are founded uponher claim to infallibility in her teaching. She professes to beguided in all her decisions concerning doctrines and morals, bythe spirit of inspiration, and therefore demands that her dogmasshall be received as the word of the eternal God. This doctrineof church-infallibility is the keystone in the Roman arch. Hewho disbelieves this, must abandon her communion. We areProtestants ; and against all her exclusive pretensions and anathe-mas, we enter our solemn protest, and assign our reasons.

Let me distinctly state what is the rule of faith acknowledgedby the Roman church, and what rule is acknowledged by Protes-tants, and then proceed to examine their respective claims. TheRoman Catholic rule is thus stated by Bishop Hughes, of NewYork, in his written discussion with Dr. J. Breckenridge : " Ourrule of faith is laid down in the Apostles' creedI believe in theholy Catholic church."* It may be well here to remark, thatthe creed called the Apostles', as all agree, was written, not bythe Apostles, but long after their death. Moreover, it does notsay, " I believe in the holy Catholic church, as an infallible ruleoffaithy We, too, believe in the holy Catholic church ; butwe do not believe in the church of Rome ; nor do we believe inany church as a rule of foAth. Dr. Milner, an eminent Romanbishop, thus defines the Roman rule : " Scripture and tradition,and these propounded and explained by the Catholic church. "tThe church, then, is the Roman Catholic rule. It may be well,therefore, to inquire what Hughes and Milner mean by thechurch. Hughes thus defines it : " By the church, I understandthat visible society of Christians, composed of the people whoare taught, and the pastors who teach, by virtue of a certaindivine commission, recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew,addressed to the Apostles and their legitimate successors, until

* Let. iv, p. 34, t End of Con , Let. x.


30/395

16 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.the end of the world. ""^^ Observe, the church consists of the 'peo-ple and their pastors^ and they together constitute " holy motherchurch"the rule of faith. Now, it seems to us rather strange,that the church should be the rule of faith to the churchtheschool its own teacher ! But so it is. Let us not, however, bedeceived here. The church, we are told, is the rule of faith ;and yet the people and the lower orders of the clergy, who con-stitute the great body of the church, are no part of that rule.The Pope and his bishops alone decide on matters of faith;and from their decision there is no appeal. So says Bishop Tre-vern, a standard writer in the church of Rome. " Let it then beestablished as a principle, that to the bishops exclusively belongthe right of declaring what has, or has not, been revealed ; thatis, what is conformable or contrary to Scripture and tradition, orsimply to one of the two."t The bishops, then, constitute therule of faith. With what propriety they are called " holy mother^''I cannot see ; but, it is well to understand, that when RomanCatholics direct us to " holy mother church," as their rule offaith, they mean the \\(^y fathersthe bishops !The Protestant rule of faith is the bible, containing the Old

and New Testaments, without the apocryphal books. We be-lieve, that these Scriptures contain the whole revelation of God,which is designed to constitute a perfect rule of faith and of prac-tice. We believe, that there is on earth no infallible interpreterof those Scriptures ; that they are to be understood according tothe well-known principles of language, and that such an inter-preter is not needed.Which of these rules is the one divinely appointed ? This is

a most important question. We are on a long journey, througha dark world, to heaven or to hell. Eternal interests depend onevery step. We feel that we need a certain guide. I would bewilling to follow any guide appointed by Jesus Christ ; but I willfollow no one who cannot fully establish the fact, that he hasbeen so appointed.

In this discussion I might proceed directly to the proof of the* Cath. Con., Let. v, p. 34. f Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 70


31/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 17proposition, that the Scriptures are our only infallible guidethelight to our feet J the lamp to our path ; but I prefer first to ex-amine the claims of the church of Rome. If they be found spu-rious, it will follow, of course, that the Protestant rule is the onlyone divinely appointed. For, let it be remembered, Protestantsand Roman Catholics agree on two important points, viz: 1. thatGod has given to man a revelation of his will ; 2. that the Scrip-tures of the Old and New Testaments constitute a part, at least,of that revelation. We say, they contain the whole. Of this Ipropose, in the progress of the discussion, to give clear and posi-tive evidence.

I. My first argument against the infallibility of the church ofRome, is, thai there is no evidence hy which it can he proved. Letit be remembered, that the whole revelation of God, according tothe Romanists, is contained in tradition and Scripture^^thewhole loord of God^^ says Bishop Milner, ^' both written and un-written^ in other words. Scripture and tradition^* These are tobe authoritatively expounded by the church. Now it is clear, ifthe whole word of God is contained in Scripture and tradition,that the infallibility of the church, if proved at all, must be provedfrom one or the other, or from both of these. There is no othersource from which evidence can be adduced.

But this doctrine cannot be proved from tradition" the un-written word." For if there be any traditions of divine authority,they are confessedly in the keeping of the church ; and theirauthority depends on her infallilDility. Surely it cannot be ex-pected that we will receive, as matters of faith, the traditions ofa church which we do not know to be the true church of Christnor can it be expected that we will receive the traditions of ^. fal-lible church. What evidence can we have that the traditions ofany church are of divine authority, unless assured, upon clearevidence, that she is inspired and infallible? In the passagealready cited from Bishop Trevern, he asserts it as an establishedprinciple, that to the bishops exclusively belongs the right ofdeclaring what has or has not been revealed, what is conformable

^* * End of Con., Let. x.


32/395

18 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.or contrary to Scripture or tradition. It may be well to quoteanother passage from the same author. After asserting the ab-solute necessity of an infallible interpreter of Scripture, he says" We must say as much, and with still better right, for tradition.The same judge, the same interpreter that unfolds to us the senseof the divine books, manifests to us also that of tradition. Nowthis judge, this interpreter, I must tell you here again, is theteaching body of the church, the bishops united in the sameopinion, at least in a great majority.*

SincCj then, tradition is exclusively in the keeping of the churchor her bishops, two points must be determined before we canknow anything certainly about it, viz.: 1st. We must knowwhich of all the rival communions is the true church of Christwhether the Greek, the Roman, or some one of the Protestantchurches. 2d. Having found the true church, we must be sat-isfied, before we can receive her traditions, if she have any, thatshe is infallible. For it is by no means self-evident, that thechurch of Christ possesses the gift of inspiration ; this point mustbe proved. The infallibility of the church of Rome cannot,therefore, be proved by tradition ; because that is in her keeping,and cannot be received and relied on, till her infallibility shallhave been established.

The infallibility of the church of Rome cannot be provedfrom Scripture.^ for several most important reasons. In the firstplace, Roman bishops assure us, that we cannot know that theScriptures are the word of God, but by the infallible decision ofthe church of Rome. So says the learned Bishop Milner :^' Supposing then you, dear sir, to be the Protestant I have beenspeaking of; I begin with asking you, by what means have youlearned the canon of Scripture, that is to say, which are the bookswhich have been written by divine inspiration ; or indeed thatany books at all have been so written? You cannot discovereither of these things by your rule, &c. Lastly, you have nosufficient authority for asserting that the sacred volumes are thegenuine composition of the holy personages whose names they

* Amic. Discussion, Vol. i, p. 169.


33/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 19bear, except the tradition and living voice of the Catholicchurch," &c. " Indeed it is so clear that the canon of Scriptureis built on the tradition of the church, that most learned Protest-ants, with Luther himself, have been forced to acknowledge it,in terms almost as strong as those in the well-knowm declaration ofSt. Augustine.."* It may be well to say, that I by no means admitthe truth of the bishop's assertion concerning the acknowledg-ments of Protestants. But he asserts unequivocally that thecanon of Scripture is built on the tradition of the churchy andthat, aside from her infallible authority, we can have no sufficientevidence that any of the books of Scripture were written by in-spiration. But, as I have already proved, we must find the truechurch, and be satisfied of her infallibility, before we can receiveher tradition, or believe the Scriptures inspired on her authority.I go to Bishop Purcell, if you please, and ask him whether he canprove to me that his church is infallible in her doctrines and mo-rals. He affirms that he can ; and he commences, just as Milnerdoes, most inconsistently, by quoting Scripture to me. I stophimj and say, "Sir, I know nothing about Scripture. You assertthat there is no sufficient evidence that the Bible is God's word,except the infallible decision of the Catholic church. I am nowin search of the true church, and am trying to ascertain whethershe is infallible ; that if she is, I may commit myself unreserv-edly to her guidance. When I shall have been satisfied on thesepoints, I will hear the church's decision about the inspiration ofthe Scriptures ; but surely you do not expect to prove to me, thatyour church is infallible, by a book which, as you assert, I can-not yet know to be inspired. It may, of course, be a mere sys-tem of priestcraft." The bishop replies"You, as a Protestant,admit the truth of the Scriptures, and therefore I quote them."" Yes, sir, I admit the truth of the Scriptures precisely because Ido not believe your doctrine. But if you convince me, thatthe authority of the Scriptures depends on the tradition of thechurch, I will not admit tlieir inspiration, until I am satisfied ofher infallibility." Perhaps he will reply, that he quotes the Bible

* End of Con. Letter ix.


34/395

20 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.as uninspired, but authentic history. But is it to be expectedthat my faith can rest upon uninspired history ? Even if itcould, the infallibility of the church is not a historical fact, whichmight be recorded by uninspired men, but a matter of divinerevelation, which God only can teach.

Dr. Milner's method of escaping this diiRculty is truly remark-able. He says, " True it is, that I prove the inspiration of Scrip-ture by the tradition of the church, and th!it 1 prove the infalli-bility of the church by the testimony of Scripture ; but you musttake notice, that independently of, and prior to, the testimony ofScripture, I knew from tradition, and the general arguments of thecredibility of Christianity, that the church is an illustrious society,instituted by Christ, and that her pastors have been appointed byhim to guide me in the way of salvation."* Observe, he knewfrom tradition ; but tradition, as we have seen, is in the keepingof the church, and its truth depends on her infallibility. Yet,Dr. Milner tells us, he found tradition, and learned from it, thatthe church was instituted by Christ, and that her pastors wereappointed as his guide ! That is, he found the testimony beforehe found the witness^ and proved the competency of the witnessby the testimony ! But he was enlightened on this subject, also,by the general arguments for the credibility of Christianity. So,then, his faith in the infallibility of his church rested, not ondivine testimony, but on general arguments for the truth of Chris-tianity ! Can such general arguments prove the church inspired?May not Christianity be true, and yet the church be fallible ? Thetruth is clear, that if, as Roman bishops constantly affirm, theauthority of Scripture depends on the tradition of the church, herinfallibility cannot be proved from Scripturefor we must findthe true church, and be satisfied of her infallibility, before we canhave evidence that the Bible is true. But, even if this difficultywere removed, and we could have evidence of the inspiration ofthe Scriptures, we are met by another, greater, if possible, thanthe first ; for we are distinctly informed by the Romish bishops,that we cannot possibly understand the Scriptures without the

* End of Con., Let. xi.


35/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 21assistance of the infallible church. So says Dr. Milner : " Inthe first place, it is certain, as a learned Catholic controvertistargues, that a person who follows your [Protestant] rule, cannotmake an act of faith ; this being, according to your great author-ity. Bishop Pearson, an assent to the revealed articles, with acertain and full persuasion of their revealed truth. * * * ^Now, the Protestant, who has nothing to trust to but his owntalents in interpreting of the books of Scripture, especially with allthe difficulties and uncertainties which he labors under, accordingto what I have shown above, never can arrive to this certain assu-rance and absolute security, as to what is revealed in Scripturethe utmost he can say, is, such and such appears to me at the presentmoment, to he the sense of the texts before me; and if he is ca7ididj hewill add, but perhaps upon further consideration, and upon com-paring these with other texts^ I may alter my opinion. How farshort, dear sir, is such mere opinion from the certainty offaith !"* The Bishop not only denies that we can, without theaid of the infallible church, understand the Scriptures, but he evendenies our right to attempt it. He says, ^ Before I enter on thediscussion of any part of Scripture with you or your friends, Iam bound, dear sir, in conformity with my rule of faith, as ex-plained by the Fathers, and particularly by TertuUian, to protestagainst your or their right to argue from Scripture, and, of course,to deny any need there is of my replying to any objection whichyou may draw from itfor I have reminded you, that no prophecyof Scripture is of any private hiterpretation ; and I have provedto you that the whole business of the Scriptures belongs to thechurch."t

It strikes us as rather singular, that the Bishop should quoteScripture to us to prove that we cannot understand Scriptureand not a little strange, that we cannot as well understand theepistles of Peter, who, they say, was the first Pope, as theEncyclical letter of Gregory XVI, published in 1832, But thedoctrine, you perceive, is, that we cannot understand the Scrip-tures, and that we have no right to reason about their meaning.

* End of Con., Let. ix. t Ibid, Let. xii.


36/395

22 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.Why, then, does this same bishop, as well as others, quote theScriptures to prove to us that the church is infallible, when theytell us in the same breath, that we cannot understand them ?

That the force of this argument may be seen, let us inquirewhat are the marks of the true church. Bishop Milner givesfour, viz. : unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Sup-pose, now, I am seeking the true church ; the- question arises^whether these are the marks of the true church, and whether thechurch of Rome has them. To prove that uniti/ is a mark of thetrue church, Milner quotes a number of Scriptures. Of course,if I am to be convinced by these passages, I must be able to un-derstand them. But let us look at the second mark, riz., saTictiti/,sanctity of doctrine. How shall I judge, whether the doctrinesof the church of Rome are holy 1 If we are to judge from theirapparent effects upon the mass of those who embrace them,we must conclude that few systems of doctrine are less holy..But it is evident, that the doctrines of the church of Rome areholy, if they are the doctrines taught by Christ and his Apos-tles ; and if they are not, they are unholy. We cannot, there-fore, determine whether she has this mark, unless we compareher doctrines with those taught in the Scriptures. And the com-parison, let it be noted, must be quite extensive ; for a number ofher doctrines may be true and holy, and yet, others may be of artopposite character. And, if she holds and teaches even one erro-neous doctrine, it is certain she is not infallible.i Now, either I can, by my private judgment, understand theScriptures, so as to compare the doctrines of Rome with themyand determine certainly whether they are holy, or I cannot. IfI can, it follows clearly, that I do not need an infallible interpre-ter of Scripture. If I cannot, then neither can I determinewhether that church has the mark in question. In either case,the claims of Rome fall to the ground. But, when I propose toenter upon this comparison of her doctrines with those of Christand the Apostles, I am reminded that I cannot understand theScriptures ; that the utmost I can do, is to form a mere opinionwhich is far below the certainty of faith ! That is, Bishop Mil-


37/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 23ner gives us certain marks by which the true church may be dis-tinguished from all others, and then tells us plainly, that wecannot ascertain whether his church has those marks ! How,then, I ask, are we to know whether the church of Rome is thetrue church, and whether she is infallible ? Certainly, her infalli-bility cannot be proved from Scripture.The position may strike many as a strange one ; but I venture to

affirm, that no man can join the church of Rome without^ in thevery act^ denying the truth of her principles. Do you ask, how thiscan be ? Suppose, then, I have heard a learned Roman Bishopattempt to prove the infallibility of his church. He has quotedmany passages of Scripture, accompanied with his own com-ments ; I have heard him through, and I am convinced ; Ibelieve that he has proved the infallibility of the church ofRome, and I propose to become a member of that church.Now, on what, let me ask, is my faith in the church of Romebased 1 Is it not based solely on my individual judgment of thestrength and conclusiveness of his argument? I have heard hisarguments, and my judgment is, that they prove the point. Ihave considered his expositions of the Scriptures he has quoted,and my judgment is, that he has interpreted them correctly. Butthis same Bishop who has so faithfully labored to convince me ofthe infallibility of his church, tells me, that according to the doc-trine of this same church, all the decisions of private judgmentrespecting the meaning of the Scriptures, are wholly uncertam ;that the utmost I can say is, such and such appears to me, at thepresent moment, to be the sense of the texts before me ; but per-haps, upon further investigation, and upon comparing these withother texts, I may alter my opinion. It is certain, he says, thatI cannot make an act of faith upon my private judgment. Ifthis doctrine be true, I can only say to the Bishop, the meaningof the texts you have quoted, appears to me to be as you saybut, upon further investigation, I may change my opinion.Will he receive me into his church on such a profession ? No." How far short," says he, " is such mere opinion from the cer-tainty of faith ?" Well, if I say to him, " Sir, I am certain that


38/395

24 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.your interpretation of the passages of Scripture you have quoted,is correct, and I can exercise faith upon ray private judgment ;"do I not, in making such a profession, contradict both him andhis church ? And if I contradict his church, do I not deny herinfalUbility T There is no escape ; the doctrines of the churchof Rome are suicidal. No man can enter within her pale, with-out, in the very act, denying her infallibility.The conclusion appears to me unavoidable, that the infallibility

of the church of Rome cannot be proved, either from tradition orfrom Scripture. In exalting her authority, she has destroyed thebridge on which we might pass from the regions of private inter-pretation into the city of the holy mother. Here I might leavethe question, but I proceed to offer a second argument, viz.

II. The controversies in the Church of Rome^ on the subject ofher infallihility^ prove her claims spurious.She is certain thatshe has infallibility ; but whether that important gift is found inthe Pope, the successor of St. Peter, she cannot inform us. Someof her bishops say, the Pope has it, when he speaks officially;others insist, that the bishops in general council have it, and thata council is above the Pope : and others still find it in the church.On this subject, Charles Butler, Esq., in his Book of the Churchygives us the following information: '"In spiritual concerns, theTransalpine opinions ascribe to the Pope a superiority, and con-trolling power over the whole church, should she chance to opposehis decrees, and consequently, over a general council, her repre-sentative ; and the same superiority and controlling powder, even inthe ordinary course of business, over the canons of the universalchurch. They describe the Pope as the fountain of all ecclesi-astical order, jurisdiction and dignity. * * * * They, fur-ther, ascribe to the Pope the extraordinary prerogative of personalinfallibility', w^hen he undertakes to issue a solemn decision onany point of faith. The Cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals, thePope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the church, and to ageneral council representing her; that he is subject to the canonsof the church, &:c. They affirm, that a general comicil may,without, and even against, the Pope's consent, reform the church.


39/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 25They deny his personal infallibility, and hold that he maybe depo-sed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism ; andthey admit, that in an extreme case, when there is great division ofopinion, an appeal lies from the Pope to a future general council."*Now let it be remarked, this is not a mere speculative question,but one of great practical importance. When the Pope speaksofficially^ or ex cathedra^ do we hear the voice of Christ, whosevicar he professes to be ; and must we, therefore, yield implicitfaith and obedience ? Or, do we hear the voice of a mere man,who may be in error ; and may we doubt or oppose his sentiments?Surely this is a question of the utmost importance. The bishopsbeyond the Alpsthe Transalpinessay, when the Pope issueshis decision in regard to doctrines or morals, we hear the voice ofChrist, and therefore must believe and obey. The Cisalpine bish-ops say. No, it is the voice of a man^ who may be in error, whomay even be deposed for heresy ; and therefore we are not torender to his decisions implicit faith and obedience.Roman Catholics talk fluently of the divisions among Protest-ants ; but can they refer to any one point on which Protestantsdiffer, which is of greater importance than this? We can, atleast, agree when and where Christ speaks to us, even if we some-times differ concerning the meaning of his language ; but thechurch of Rome cannot determine when he speaks. How, then,can she interpret his language? Some hear him through thePope ; others do not there recognize his voice.

Truly this is a singular controversy. Would Christ impart toany man the important gift of inspiration, that he might guidehis church in the path of truth, and yet not let him know hisown inspiration, or not enable him to satisfy his people on thatpoint? When Moses was divinely appointed to lead Israel to thepromised land, he not only knew his own qualifications, but wasenabled to satisfy the people on that head. Now, in regard tothe popes, one of two things is true, viz : either they do not knowwhether they are infallible or not ; or they cannot give to thechurch, the bishops, such evidence as will satisfy them. Why

o *Let. X.


40/395

26 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.have not the popes decided " this dispute, so long agitated in theschools," as the Bishop Trevern says it has been? If they knewthey were not infaUible, why have they permitted so many bish-ops and people to believe and defend their infallibility ? If theyknew themselves infallible, why have they allowed so manyothers to doubt and dispute it ? What are we to think of a man,who, knowing himself fallible, will yet permit those under hisguidance to regard him as speaking under the immediate direc-tion of the Holy Spirit? Or, shall we say, the popes knewthemselves infallible ; but Jesus Christ, though he imparted tothem infallibility, has not given them the evidence to convincetheir bishops and people that they have it ?

But what is still worse, the church, even in a general council,cannot settle this dispute. The Council of Trent, like othercouncils, was profoundly silent on the subject. Indeed, the ques-tion never can be determined ; for the church, we are told, cannotmake new articles of faith. To the end of time, therefore, thisgreat practical question must remain undetermined. Romanists,indeed, tell us, it is matter of opinion. The truth is, those pointsabout wdiich the bishops of the church cannot agree, howeverimportant, they conclude to call opinions; and those on whichthey do agree, are dignified with a place amongst the doctrinesBut this play upon words, this distinction without a difference, isonly a vain effort to conceal an insurmountable difficulty.

But what if, at any time, the Pope and Council should differ ?Why, Bishop Trevern says: "But if ever it should happen,which God forbid, and which we Galileans think impossible, if itever should happen, that the great number should separate fromthe head, it would then be necessary that one of the two partiesshould adopt the sentiments of the other, to preserve the churchfrom schism, the greatest of all evils."* As the church cannotdetermine whether the Pope is infallible ; neither can she decideconcerning the limits of his authority. One party, as we haveproved by Butler, and could easily prove by others, contends thathe is above the church, and above a general council. The other

* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 178.


41/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 27maintains, that he is inferior to a council, and may be deposedfor schism or heresy, by a general council. And the Bishop canonly say, that if there should ever be a division about this matter,one or the other party must yield its claimsAnd stranger still, the church of Rome cannot determine, or

certainly has not yet determined, to what extent the Pope hastemporal power^ or the right, when he thinks the good of religiondemands it, to depose kings and absolve their subjects from theiroath of allegiance. Butler says, ''the Tr^?imZpme divines attri-buted to the Pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least,of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good ; and, in conse-quence of it, maintained, that the supreme power of every statewas so far subject to the Pope, that when he deemed that the badconduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of thechurch, that he should reign no longer, the Pope was then author-ized, by his divine commission, to deprive him of his sovereign-ty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegianceand that even, on ordinary occasions, he might enforce obedienceto his spiritual legislation and jurisdiction, by civil penalties."*The Popes were not slow to avail themselves of the indefiniteauthority conferred on them by their office. The tremendousprogress of their unrestrained ambition is recorded by Butler, inthe following language : " From an humble fisherman, the Popesuccessively became owner of houses and lands, acquired thepower of magistracy in Rome, and large territorial possessions inItaly, Dalmatia, Sicily, Sardinia, France, and Africa, and ulti-mately obtained the rank .and consequence of a great temporalprince. Here the Pope did not stop ; but claimed, by divine gift,a right to exercise supreme temporal power over all Christiansovereigns, when a great good of religion required it."t BishopMilner says, "it is undeniable, that different popes, in formerages, have pronounced deposition against certain contemporaryprinces and great numbers of theologians have held (though notas a matter of faith) that they had a right to do so."JNow, either the popes knew that Christ had given them no

* Book of Church, Let. x. f Ibid., Let. ix. X End of Con., Let. xlvi.


42/395

28 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.such civil power as they claimed, or they did not. If they didnot, they were amazingly ignorant of the plainest truths of thegospel they pretended to teach to the church, as well as of thenature and duties of the high office they professed to have receiv-ed from Christ. For, Mr. Butler says, " This claim was unfound-ed ; both the gospel and tradition declared against it, and it producedgreat evil."* And Bishop Milner says: "Even the incarnateSon of God, from whom he [the PopeJ derives the supremacy,which he possesses, did not claim, here on earth, any right of theabove-mentioned kind: on the contrary, he positively declared,that his kingdom is not of this world !^^\ If then, the popes putforth those claims ignorantly^ how amazingly stupid they musthave been ! It is an article of the Roman Catholic faith, saysButler, that to the pope belongs " the principal authority in de-fining articles of faith ;"t and yet he puts forth and exercisesclaims, as of divine gift, directly in the face of the plainest decla-rations of the Gospel ! Nay, he claims power which, even Mil-ner being judge, the Son ofGod himself did not claim, while onearth ! And more than this, he was sustained in this claim, saysMilner, by "great numbers of theologians ;" and Cardinal Bellar-mine, one of the most eminent of the Romish theologians, isfound amongst the number. And these are the men to whomthe church and the world are expected to look, as the divinelyauthorized expounders of God's word ! ! !

But if the claims in question were not set forth by the popes ig-norantlyif they knew at the time, that Jesus Christ had giventhem no such powerwhat shall we say of their impious prostitu-tion of an office they professed to regard as the highest and mostsacred on earth? In the name of Jesus they deposed sovereignsfrom those offices which God in his providence had given them ;and in the name of Jesus pretended to absolve subjects from theiroath of allegiance. I can conceive of scarcely anything moreimpious. And if those theologians who defended those claims,were not stupidly ignorant, but did know they were defendingfalsehood, what shall we think of them ? Are these the men to* Book of Ch., Let. ix. f End of Con., Let. xlvi. t Book of Ch., Let. x


43/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 29whose expositions of God's word we are expected to look up withreverence ? and to whose instructions we are required to commitour souls?

But, above all, what shall we say of " holy mother church,"as the church of Rome is called, in view of the fact, that to thisday she has never reproved those unauthorized and impiousclaims of her popes, sustained by great numbers of her theolo-gians ? Did the church know that Christ had given the popesno such power as they claimed and exercised? If she did not, shewas more ignorant than Dr. Milner and Mr. Butler, and was amiserable interpreter of Scripture. If she did, why was not herreproving voice heard? Mr. Butler says, both the gospel andtradition were against the claims set forth by the popes; thechurch pretends to be the only authorized expounder of both gos-pel and tradition ; and yet not one of her general councils hasspoken against the impious claims so long set forth and exercisedby them! Nay, even to this day, the pope is a temporal prince,exercising civil authority over a nation of people, making Avarand peace as other kings. And yet Christ, whose vicar he pre-tends to be, said, as Milner well remarks, that his kingdom wasnot of this world.When, some years since, the question was agitated in England

concerning the pope's temporal power, certain questions relativeto it were sent to several universities in Europe. They answered,that the pope has no such civil power as divers popes have claim-ed. But why were not these questions sent to the pope himself 'fWhy did he not inform the world, whether he repudiated theunhallowed claims of his predecessors? Who does not know,that the opinions of universities are of no value whatever ? Thepope is confessedly above them all ; and again and again has hedeclared, that he has the right to exercise civil power over thenations. And of what avail was the oath taken by English andIrish Romanists on the same subject ? Is the pope bound to re-gard it?

Let me appeal to the reason and common sense of the audi-ence. Can you believe, that Jesus Christ appointed an office in


44/395

30 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.his church of such unspeakable importance, and so capable ofbeing abused to the incalculable injury of the church and theworld, without clearly defining the kind and the limits of thepower connected with it, and the qualifications of the officer whoshould fill it? Suppose the kind and the degree of power to beexercised by the president of these United States, as undeterminedas that exercised by the pope, and the qualifications of the manto fill the office no better understood ; what would our constitutionbe worth? Will it be believed, that our Saviour was less wisethan the framers of our civil government?

Againwas there ever a question in the Christian church,whether the apostle Peter was inspired? Was the question everagitated in the days of the Apostles, whether Peter had the rightto exercise civil power? No such questions were ever agitated.If, then, the popes be his successors, how happens it, that in thechurch of Rome there has been so much disputing about theirinspiration and their authority?

Is a general council infallible ? Some Roman bishops answeraffirmatively, and some negatively. We might safely concludethat they have no infallibility, so long as they are unable to findit. But the first question that arises here is, what is a generalcouncil? We want a clear definition of this important body.We desire an infallible definition, too ; for if it be fallible, it maybe wrong, according to the reasoning of Roman writers; and,consequently, we cannot rely on it. Where, then, shall we ob-tain an infallible definition of a general council? We cannot getit from any council ; for if a council declare itself to be generalor cBcumenical, we still desire evidence. Where shall we findit? Here we meet another puzzling difficulty, viz.: the NewTestament says not a word about a general council. There isnot even a distant allusion to such a body. This is quite asstrange, if the doctrine of the church of Rome be true, as thatthe Constitution of the United States should say not a wordabout Congress, although it is to be the great legislative bodyof the nation! It is truly remarkable, that although the Apostlesin their epistles, repeatedly warned the churches against false


45/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY.teachers and religious errors; yet they never once directedthem either to Peter^s chair, or to a general council.

It is important to know what a general council is, and whatproportion of those constituting it forms a quorum^ that businessmay be infallibly done. Bishop Trevern, though he gives us nodefinition or description of a general council, says '' It is by ac-ceptation^ that we are convinced that a council is really oBcume-nical, and it is by acceptation equally that we know with cer-tainty that the pope has pronounced ex cathedra.''^ ^ The churchor the bishops, we are told, must accept the decrees of a council,before we can certainly know, that it is (Ecumenical or generaland they must accept the pope's decisions, before we can be surethat he has pronounced ex cathedra. Well, lohat proportion ofof the bishops must accept the decisions of a council or pope, be-fore they are to be regarded as infallible? " The bishops," sayshe, ^' united in the same opinion, at least in a great majorityJ^\These constitute the infallible judge. But the phrase'^ a greatmajority"is very indefinite. How great a majority must agree?Butler says" When the general body, or a great majority ofher [the church's] prelates, have assented to them [definitions andformulas of faith], whether by formal consent, or tacit assent, allare bound to acquiesce in them.":]: Here again all is indefinite.What does he mean by the general body or great majority? Howgreat must the m.ajority be? Now suppose the question is asked,what is meant by the Congress of the United States, and theanswer, that when the representatives of the people are calledtogether, and '4he general body or great majority" are assembled,they can proceed to business ; and when the United States, " atleast in a great majority," accepts their decisions, it is clear thatthe body is rightly called the Congress. Would not the state-ment appear ridiculous? Could such a body know when toproceed to business?

But this is not the only difficulty involved in the doctrine ofthe infallibility of general councils. Their infallibility, if theyhave it, is altogether of a new kind. The only inspiration of* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 178. f Ibid., p. 169. X Book of Ch., Let. x


46/395

32 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.which we read in the Scriptures is that of individuals. Moseswas an inspired man, and so were Isaiah, and Jeremiah, andDavid, and Paul, and James, and Peter ; and the writings of eachof these men Roman Catholics themselves regard as the word ofGod. We do not find in the Bible a single example of a bodyof men, each of whom was fallible, constituting an infalliblebody. Yet such is the character of Roman infallibility ; no oneof the bishops pretends to be infallible, and yet the decrees ofthe council composed of these fallible men, we are told, are in-spired and infallible i To say nothing of the absurdity of theidea, the fact that in the Scriptures we read of no such inspira-tion, the fact that Roman infallibility is of a new kind^ is suffi-cient to render it more than suspicious. It evidently is not thegenuine coin ; it has not on it the stamp of heaven. The suc-cessors of the Apostles should have apostolic infallibility. Sincethe church of Rome has it not, we are forced to the conclusionthat she is but a blind guide.We have, in the Acts of the Apostles, an account of the firstChristian council, which was an infallible council assembled todecide a great doctrinal question. Was it necessary to wait un-til it was ascertained whether the church would accept their de-crees, before it could be known whether they were infallibly cor-rect ? Nothat council said ' For it seemed good to the HolyGhost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than thesenecessary things," &c. ; c. xv, 28. They knew they were underthe guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their decision was final.There was no w^aiting, as in the church of Rome, for the accept-ance of the church.The truth is plain, that the infallibility of the church of Rome,

if she is infallible, is wholly of a new kind, unlike anything ofwhich we read in the sacred Scriptures. And since we findthere no intimation, that after the days of the Apostles, the churchwas to have a new kind of inspiration, we are obliged to concludethat her claims to inspiration are false and deceptive.From the inconsistencies and contradictions of Rome, how

pleasant to turn to the pure Word of God, " the lamp to our feet,


47/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY.the light to our path." Truly, it is able "to make us wise untosalvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus." Its gloriousdoctrines are set forth and illustrated with inimitable clearnessand simplicity ; and its promises, " exceeding great and precious,"scattered richly over its sacred pages, cheer the heart of the be-liever on his journey to a better world. " We all with open face,beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed intothe same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of theLord." As "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the fir-mament showeth his handy work ;" so, in this blessed volumewe behold, written "in fairer brighter lines," the infinite perfec-tions of our Heavenly Father, and the glorious plan of salvationwhich he has revealed.

This subject will be resumed in the next Lecture.


48/395


49/395

SCRIPTURE THE ONLY GUIDE. 35

LECTURE II.Acts, xvii, 11, 12. " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,

in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searchedthe Scriptures daily, whether these things were so."" Therefore manyof them believed : also of honorable women which were Greeks, and ofmen, not a few."Paul and Silas, as ambassadors of Christ, had visited Thes-

salonica, and, three successive Sabbaths, had entered the syna-gogue and reasoned with the Jews " out of the Scriptures," prov-ing that Jesus was the Christ. The unbelieving Jews, in con-nection with certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, excited agreat commotion in the city. The lives of Paul and Silas beingendangered, the brethren sent them to Berea, where, entering thesynagogue, they preached the gospel. The Bereans, more noblethan the Thessalonians, heard them with deep interest, andsearched the Scriptures daily, whether their doctrines were true.The result was, that many of them believed. From these factsthe following important principles are deduced

I. That the Scriptures were the only infallible guide in faithund practice, known either to the Apostles or the Berean Jews.The Apostles, we are told. " reasoned out of the Scriptures."The Bereans were not yet certain that their doctrines were true.How did they satisfy their minds on this subject ? Not by anappeal to tradition, or to the high priest, or to the scribes andPharisees ; but simply to the Scriptures. They certainly knewof no other source whence they could obtain certain informationconcerning the truth of the doctrines preached ; and they neededno other.

II. The second principle deducible from the facts stated, isthat by searching the Scriptures the people can ascertain theiimeaning, and can exercise true faith, without the aid of church


50/395

36 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.interpretation. The Bereans thus tested the truth of the Apos-tles' doctrines ; and the result was, '' many among them believed."Therefore, the doctrine of Komanists is not true, that those whosearch the Scriptures for themselves, ' cannot make an act offaith."

III. To test by the Scriptures, the truth of the doctrines taughtby professed ministers of Christj is both a praiseworthy, and asafe course. " These were more noble than those of Thessalo-nica." Such is the commendation bestowed by the Holy Spiriton those who thus tested the doctrines, even of inspired menalthough they could prove their divine mission by miracles. Ifit was both lawful and highly commendable in the Bereans to doso, and if they could correctly interpret the Scriptures of the OldTestament, is it not equally commendable in Christians now, andcan they not, with the additional light of the New Testament,much more easily and certainly come to a knowledge of thetruth ? What, then, are we to think of the Roman clergy, who,while they claim to be the legitimate successors of the Apostles,shrink from the test to which they so cheerfully submitted, andcondemn the people for doing precisely that which they so highlycommended ?

But, says Bishop Milner, in the effort to escape these conclu-sions, " They [the Bereans] searched the ancient prophecies toverify that the Messiah was to be born at such a time, and in sucha place, and that his life and his death were to be marked by suchand such circumstances."* Suppose we admit, though there isnot a particle of evidence of it, that they confined their investiga-tions to the ancient prophecies ; it follows inevitably, that a partat least, of the prophecies of Scripture can, and must be under-stood, by the exercise of 'private judgment. Yet this samebishop, in order to prove that the whole business of interpretingthe Scriptures belongs exclusively to the church, triumphandyquotes the passage, " No prophecy of Scripture is of any privateinterpretation." That is, he quotes a passage of Scripture to provethat individuals have no right to attempt to understand for them

* End of Con., Letter xii.


51/395

CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 37selves any part of the Scriptures, especially the prophecies, andthen is compelled to acknowledge, that the Bereans did examinefor themselves, even the ancient jjrophecies, did correctly under-stand them, and were commended by God for so doing ! It isclear, therefore, that he grossly perverts the passage quoted.Peter was speaking, not of the exposition, but of the inspirationof the Scriptures. The Prophets, he says, are the interpretersof God's will to man ; not the setters forth of their individualnotio7iSj their own private opinions" for holy men spake of oldas they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Consequently, theprophecies, being given by inspiration, are " a more sure word,unto which," says Peter, " ye do well that ye take heed, as to alight that shineth in a dark place."* So far from forbidding anattempt on the part of the people to understand the writings ofthe Prophets, as being too obscure, he exhorts them to take heedto them, as a light shining in the midst of darkness.Thus we find the first great doctrine of the Reformation, that

the Scriptures are the only infallible guide in faith and practice,and that individuals can search and understand their sacred teach-ings, fully sustained. Let us further pursue this investigationfor it is one in which every human being is deeply, eternallyinterested.

I have offered two general arguments, clearly disproving theinfallibility of the church of Rome, viz.: L There is no evidencein favor of her claims, either from tradition or from Scripture.Not from tradition, because if there be traditions of divine autho-rity, they are confessedly in the keeping of the church ; and theirauthority depends upon her infallibility. Consequently, we mustfind the true church, and be satisfied of her infallibility, beforewe can receive her traditions. Not from Scripture, becausethat also, we are assured, is in the keeping of the church ; sothat we cannot know the Bible to be the Word of God, or under-stand its meaning, except as we rely upon the infallible church.Consequently, we must find the church, and be assured that sheis infallible, before we can receive or understand the Scriptures.

* 2 Peter i, 19.


52/395

33 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY.II. The controversies in the church of Rome, concerning her

infallibilitywhether the pope is infallible, and what is the kindand the extent of his authority ; whether a general council isinfallible; what is a general council, &c.these controversiesprove, that the church of Rome has not the gift of infallibilitythat the inspiration which she claims, not being that of indi-viduals, but of masses of men, is wholly unlike the inspirationof which we read in the Bible, and wholly unlike that of thefirst Christian council at Jerusalem.

I now proceed to present some additional arguments on thissubject.

III. My third general argument against the infallibility of thechurch of Rome, is founded on the fact, that her infallibility, asclaimed, does 7iot extend far enough. It is not, in this respect,such infallibility as we read of in the Scriptures, nor such as theinterests of the church require. In the first place, a very largeproportion of Scripture, it is admitted, she cannot expound. It isa fact, that she has given no interpretation of the larger portionof the Bible. The reason why she has not, is given by BishopMilner, " She does not dictate an exposition of the whole Bible,because she has no tradition concerning a very great proportion ofit."* The church of Rome claims to be authorized and quali-fied by Jesus Christ to interpret his Word ; she forbids all indi-viduals to attempt what she calls private interpretation ; and yetit is acknowledged, that she is unable to give any interpretationof a very large proportion of it. She cannot go beyond her tra-ditions, and she has no tradition concerning that large portion

Documents

Romanism is Not Christianity [1847] - Rice, N.L