Roman Catholicism In thdiqht ofthairoipn 5cri(>o penance. Which word, ac- cording to the use of the Scriptures and the holy fathers, does not only signify repentance and amendment of life, but also punishing past sins by fasting, and such like penitential exer- cises." That the meaning of this Greek word is "re- pent" is shown by the fact that the Douay trans- lators themselves frequently render it thus. For example, I cite the following texts : "The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent \^metanoeol^, and believe the gos- pel" (Mark 1:15). "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him : and if he do penance [metanoeo^i forgive him. And if he sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day be converted unto thee, saying, I repent \_inetanoeo~\ ; forgive him" (Luke 17: 3, 4). In 14 Boman CatJiolicism this text they were obliged to translate it "re- pent" in order to avoid a ridiculous rendering. "Be penitent [metanoeo^, therefore, and be con- verted, that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19). "I gave her a time that she might do penance [metanoeol, and she will not repent [metanoeo'] of her fornication" (Apoc. [Rev.] 2:21). Metanoya, another form of the same Greek word, is also translated "penance" in Luke 24 : 47 : "And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations." However, the Douay translators, conscious of the real meaning and force of the original word, could not uniformly render it thus. "Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Savior, to give repent- ance [metanoya^ to Israel, and remission of sins" (Acts 5:31). "God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance [metanoya'j unto life" (Acts 11 : 18). "If peradventure God may give them repentance [metanoya'] to know the truth" (2 Tim. 2: 25). "He found no place of repentance [metanoyay^ (Heb. 12:17). It is an evident fact, and one well known to these translators, that "penance" does not ex- press the real force of the original Greek word, which signifies a change of character^ a per- Introduction 15 Tnanent alteration of the disposition and habits. Furthermore, in the teaching of Christ and of his apostles there is nothing agreeable to the later practise of performing certain works of penance in order to receive forgiveness. That practise grew up by degrees during the apos- tasy. It was first applied to those who, after having fallen away and brought scandal upon the church, desired to be readmitted into fel- lowship. In the preparation of this work, I have made a few choice selections from Delineation of Roman Catholicism, by Rev. Chas. Elliott, D. D. With a prayer that the truths contained in this little volume may lead some honest souls into the light of truth, I remain, Yours in Christian love, H. M. Riggle. Akron, Indiana. December 29, 1915. ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH OF GOD The New Testament church is a divine insti- tution. Her inception was coeval in the mind of God with that of the plan of salvation. Her origin, being the result of redemption, was in- separable from it. This beautiful church, re- deemed through the blood of the Lamb, stood before the Father's mind parallel with the gift of his Son. God cast upon the earth a beauti- ful shadow of that holy institution, in the form of the temple and all its contents. And after "Moses was verily faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after," in due time "Christ, as a Son over his own house," appeared and built this beautiful church of the living God. He adorned her foundations and walls with the pure gold of his heavenly light, and set them with the precious stones of his graces and gifts ; he draped her pillars with the robes of his right- eousness ; and he shed in her the light of his own glory. She is from heaven, "the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God" (Rev. 3: 12). Along with Christ her builder, she is the gift of in- finite love. 17 18 Roman Catholicism She is "God's building," chosen of him for his own dwelling-place — "built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22). Here the Lord spreads a continual feast of love for all his heaven-born children. She is the "true tabernacle" of the present divine testi- mony, which *'t1ie Lord hath pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2). As the house of God, he that buildeth all things in her, is God (Heb. 3 : 4 ) ; as the beloved city, she "hath foundations whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11 : 10) ; as a visible working force, she is a kingdom set up by the God of heaven, which shall never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44). Her foundation is Jesus Christ, the, divine Savior — "for other foundation can no man lay, but that which is laid; which is Jesus Christ." Her life and light is the "eternal spirit," and her creed is the pure Word of God. God's church is a "spir- itual house," and to her is given the spiritual law. All her ordinances and observances are divine, and found in the New Testament. The government of the Church of God is divine, not only in its legislative department, but also in its judicial and executive depart- ments. "The government is upon his shoulder" (Isa. 9:6). "He is the head of the body, the church, . . . that in all things he may hold Origin of the Church of God 19 the primacy" (Col. 1:18). "The same God who worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12: 6). This is truly "the church of God, which he hath pur- chased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). God, having purchased, founded, and built the church, claims in her the exclusive right of proprietorship. She is not, then, "our church," the Church of Rome, or any Protestant sect, but "God's building," divinely owned ; and "his glory he will not give to another." Jesus himself said, "Upon this rock i will build my CHURCH, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16: 18). From the foregoing we learn that the New Testament church was built by Christ; that he built but one church; that this one church, which he denominates "my church," belongs ex- clusively to him ; and that it shall stand forever. The work of organizing and establishing this church began under the labors of John the Bap- tist, and was continued under the personal min- istry of Christ. From the days of John "men pressed into the kingdom." But during that time there was a lapping-over of dispensations. The law was still in force, while the principles of the gospel and the truths of the New Testa- ment were being introduced and taught. At the death of Christ, the law dispensation prop- 20 Roman CatJiolicism erly ended and the gospel fully came into force. The question arises, At what particular time was the New Testament church fully organized as a distinct institution, a visible, living, mov- ing, working force? when were the words of Jesus strictly fulfilled wherein he said, "I will build my church"? By a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 12 it will be seen that the work of organizing the church, forming it into due parts and furnish- ing it with organs, belongs to the Spirit. Just such a work was fully accomplished on the day of Pentecost, when the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the one hundred and twenty believers who were assembled in Jeru- salem. They began to speak forth the wonder- ful works of God, "as the Spirit gave them to speak." Under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the g'ospel was preached, which re- sulted in the conversion of three thousand souls. The rite of baptism was administered to these converts. "And there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles." "And all they that believed were together." From this time on, it is said, "The Lord in- creased daily together such as should be saved." Origin of the Church of God 21 "the loed added to the church daily such as should be saved." See Acts 2. Thus the first Christian church was planted at Jerusalem. This took place, it is supposed, in the year A. D. 33. The Church of Rome has always claimed to be the first church. Even many Protestants be- lieve her to be the first. But this claim is dis- proved by the clear testimony of the Word of God that the first Christian church was planted in Jerusalem, not in Rome. A careful reading of the Acts clearly shows that Jerusalem was the headquarters of the work for many years after it was fully established. The apostles remained there. Even during the great disper- sion, when the saints "were all dispersed through the regions of Judea and Samaria," because of the persecution that arose about Stephen, the apostles remained at Jerusalem ( see Acts 8:1; 11:19-22). The prophet had declared that "the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Jesus said that "penance [repentance] and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all na- tions, beginning at Jerusalem''; and again, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the utter- most part of the earth." When congregations 22 Boman CatJiolicism were raised up in Samaria, Antioch, and other cities round about, as the truth spread from place to place, it was from Jerusalem that apos- tles and ministers were sent forth to establish and confirm the brethren. It is not certain who carried the gospel to Rome ; perhaps it was the "strangers of Rome" who were at Je;rusalem on Pentecost (Acts 2: 10). Paul wrote his Epis- tle to the Romans about A. D. 58, which was about five years before he went there personally. But one thing is certain, the primitive congre- gation of God's people to whom Paul addressed his epistle was vastly different from the pres- ent Romish hierarchy, or papacy. IS THE CHURCH OF ROME THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH? On a number of points we hold common ground with our Catholic friends. That the Christian church is a divine institution, that there is but one true church, that there must be unity of faith and practise, and that sects and schisms are condemned by the Word of God, we agree. But the Romanists' claim that they are this one exclusive and primitive church is without Scriptural warrant. In A. D. 32 Jesus said, "I will build my Is Rome tJie Primitive Church? 23 church." In A. D. 33 "the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved" (Acts 2: 47). "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," A. V. The fact that people were being added to the church proves that it was already built. The complete or- ganization of the Church of God dates from Pentecost. The Church of Rome came into ex- istence since A. D. 33, therefore it can not be the true primitive church. Thus her claim of being the first church and mother of all churches is false. I repeat, since the true church dates from the day of Pentecost, it follows conclu- sively that later institutions (including the Church of Rome) can not be that church. It is the true; they are the false. It is the real; they are substitutes. It is the genuine; they must be counterfeits. We, as the saints of the Most High, discard the latter and abide in the former. We cling to the Church of God and reject all sects. Are we not orthodox in so doing .f* Who can deny it.^* THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH AND THE CHURCH OF ROME COMPARED The true church is characterized by its re- ceiving and retaining the doctrine and faith of 24 Roman Caiholicism the apostles. It is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:20). "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42). The church must hold the same doctrines which the inspired apos- tles and prophets taught, and which are con- tained in the Holy Scriptures. This is the test laid down by Jesus himself : "My sheep hear my voice : . . . and they follow me" ; "A stranger they follow not." Hear the apostle on this point: "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son." It is not, then, the sentiments of fathers, or pontiffs, or bishops, or councils, but only those of prophets and apostles, that constitute the foundation of the church's faith. Its apostolic doctrine is the first test of the church, which is emphatically entitled "the pillar and ground of the truth." If this quality is wanting, nothing else can avail. The Church of Rome fulfils the prediction of Paul that "some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). She has departed from the apostolic doctrine that salvation is obtain- Is Rome the Primitive Church? 25 able through repentance and faith alone (Mark 1:15; Rom. 4 : 16 ; Rom. 10 : 9 ; Eph. 2 : 8, 9) and substituted a religion of works, including indulgences, the confessional, mass, extreme unc- tion, purgatory, etc. Not a single one of these has any foundation in Holy Writ. She has departed from the apostolic doctrine of holiness of heart and life (Matt. 5:8; Tit. 2 : 11, 12 ; Luke 1 : 74, 75 ; 1 John 4 : 17 ; 1 John 3:3, 6) and substituted a mere external holi- ness, which she has restricted to certain orders and individuals, such as monks, nuns, sisters of charity, prelates, and popes ; thus has come the appellation, "His Holiness the Pope." In the primitive church all the brethren were holy, be- cause they were saved from sin. She has departed from the apostolic doctrine of a sinless life ( 1 John 3:6, 8, 9 ; 1 John 5 : 18), and in the following quotations from her standard authors acknowledges and teaches that her members are full of sin. In fact, a sinless life is nowhere taught by the priesthood of Rome. Moreover, manifest sinners, as well as concealed her- etics and infidels, pertain to the external and visible church of Christ. . . . The sanctity, such as Christ wills to exist in the church in this earth, does not exclude wicked men and sinners. — Lieberman: Insti- tutiones Theologicae, p. 177. 26 Roman CatJiolicism In the one true and Catholic church of Christ, there are not only the imperfect, but also great sinners, and that not only concealed, but manifest. — ^Bellarmine: De Eccles, C, 9. These statements are selected from thousands by which it can be shown that the Church of Rome has departed from the primitive faith. This proves her to be an apostate church, in- stead of the primitive Church of God. Holiness is a distinguishing feature of the true church. Accordingly, we read that "holi- ness becometh thine house, O Lord, unto length of days" ( Psa. 92 : 5—93 : 5, A. V. ) . The mem- bers of this church are called "saints," which signifies holy persons, or those who have been saved from their sins and who live righteously and godly in this present world. It is through the new birth that people enter the kingdom, or church, of God, and "whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin" (1 John 3:9). The Church of God is the body of Christ, and the mere profession of Christianity makes no one a member of Christ. All true members of the Church of God are born of God by the Spirit, and are therefore the sons of God. Christ is the door of this church, and he says, "By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 10: 9). Of the church in her primitive glory it is said, "They were all filled with the Holy Is Rome tJie Primitive Church f 27 Ghost" (Acts 2:4). "And when thej had prayed, the place was moved wherein they were assembled ; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with confidence. And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: . . . and great grace was in them all" (Acts 4: 31-33). "But of the rest no man durst j oin himself unto them ; but the people magnified them. And the multi- tude of men and women who believed in the Lord, was more increased" (Acts 5: 13, 14). Another picture^ of the ideal primitive church is given in Eph. 5 : 25-27 — "Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it : that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life : that he might present to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish." Thus we see that the spiritual character of the true Church of God is holiness of heart and a sinless life, in all its members. When we contrast this with the teaching and lives of those who constitute the Church of Rome, there is no identity. They do not teach a Spirit-filled and sinless life, nor do their mem- bers claim to practise such. Roman Catholics 28 ^ Eoman CatJioUcism teach that open and notorious sinners, infidels and heretics, are members of the church. Moreover, manifest sinners, as well as concealed heretics and infidel's, pertain to the external and visible church of Christ. Sinners, with other infidels, are joined in the profession of the same Christian faith, and communion of the same sacraments, and are held under the same government of legitimate pastors. Therefore, they have all things which are' required for a member of the church. — Lieberman. The sanctity, such as Christ wills to exist in his church in this earth, does not exclude wicked men and sinners. — Id. The church is constituted not only of the perfect and just, but it hath mixed the wicked and sinners, even notable and wicked sinners. — ^Bailly. Open transgressors are members of the church. — Dens. In the one true and Catholic Church of Christ, there are not only the imperfect, but also great sinners, and that not only concealed, but manifest. — Bellarmine. If wicked members were not true members of the church, a wicked pope could not be the head of the church. — Id. I deem the foregoing quotations from stand- ard authors in the Church of Rome sufficient proof that it has no identity whatever with the primitive Church of God. From their own Hps we judge them. The most flagrant transgress- ors, such as drunkards, swearers, adulterers, yes, "great sinners," wicked men, "not only concealed, but manifest" — "open transgressors" — are acknowledged members of the Roman Is Rome tlie Primitive Church? 29 church. Such may live and die accredited mem- bers of their church. In no other point does the apostasy of the Church of Rome appear more striking and evident than in her permit- ting the wicked to remain church-members. Since Jesus said that a bad tree can not bring forth good fruit, and that a tree is known by its fruit, the Church of Rome must be a corrupt tree. To quote their own authors: Many popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians; some were noted for sedition, war, and slaughter; for profligacy of manners, for avarice and symony. — Gerhard: De Eccles, sec. 263, p. 438. The cardinals were also noted for pride, luxury, avarice, and other crimes. — Id., sec. 264, p. 439. The morals of the bishops, priests, and other clergy were equally depraved. — Id., p. 440. Is this a picture of the New Testament church, which Paul declared to be "a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish".? Surely in the Church of Rome is fulfilled the prediction of Paul that an apostasy, or falling away, would come. The Church of God is the body of Christ. "His body, which is the church" (Col. 1:24). "He is the head of the body, the church" (v. 18) . "The church, which is his body" (Eph. 1:22, 23). These texts are conclusive; the church is 30 Roman CatJiolicism Christ's body. This body is composed of all the saved. "You are the body of Christ, and members of member" (1 Cor. 12:27). All Christians belong to the Church of God. You can not be a Christian without being a member of Christ's body, and this is the church. Thus, it includes in its membership every saved man in heaven and on earth. Paul denominates it "all paternity in heaven and earth" (Eph. 3:15). "The whole family in heaven and earth," A. V. Nothing less than this can be the Church of God. Reader, observe well this truth. Since the Church of God includes the entire host of redeemed souls in heaven and on earth, it is not a sect ; it is the whole. The Church of Rome, in order to be God's church, must include in her membership all Christians. In the creed and oath of Pope Pius IV, which is a standard document of Ro- man Catholic faith. Article 15, is this statement: "This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, I now freely profess and truly hold," etc. This virtually states that all outside of the Church of Rome are lost. This, of course, would include the hosts of redeemed souls who constituted the Church of God before the Church of Rome was established, the millions of faith- ful souls who lived during the reign of popery Is Borne tJie Primitive Chiirchf 31 and never submitted to the supremacy of the Roman bishop, the added millions of Protestants who have thrown off the yoke of the papacy, and the innumerable company of the redeemed in the paradise of God. Yet every one who has been saved through the blood of the Lamb is a member of Christ's church. Judged by this infallible rule, the Romish church can not be the church that God established. The church is one body ; hence it has but one living head. The Scriptures nowhere teach that the Pope of Rome is the head of all Christians, and of the church, but on the other hand, they positively contradict it. "Which he wrought in Christ, raising him up from the dead, and setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places. . . . And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body" (Eph. 1:20-23). "And he is the head of the body, the church . . . that in all things he may hold the primacy" (Col. 1 : 18). "Christ is the head of the church" (Eph. 5 : 23). None other is the "prince of pastors" — "chief Shepherd," A. v.— but Christ alone (1 Pet. 5:4). Hence the apostolic and primitive church acknowl- edged no Roman pontiff as the head of the church, but gave this honor to Christ alone, 32 Roman Cafholicism who supplied life and spirit to the entire body (Col. 2:19). Membership in the Church of God is obtained through salvation. Jesus said, "I am the door. By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" (John 10:9). "And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved" (Acts 2: 47). "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," A. V. "Those that were being saved," R. V. "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him" (1 Cor. 12: 18). "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Col. 1:13). Taking mem- bers into the church does not belong to any man, but is the work of God. The Lord, not Roman priests, added the members to the prim- itive church. These were added by their ob- taining salvation. Thus we learn that the mo- ment an individual is saved, he is a member of the Church of God. Obtaining salvation makes no one a member of the Church of Rome. Millions have been saved through the blood of the Lamb who never acknowledged the supremacy of the Roman pon- tiff. Were a heathen to become sufficiently en- lightened to repent and believe on the Lord Je- Is Borne the Primitive Church? 33 sus Christ, he would be saved, and thus made a member of the New Testament church. But such a one does not become a member of the Church of Rome until he has submitted to cer- tain external rites and ceremonies, and declared his allegiance to the Roman bishop. Thus you see there is no identity between the two churches. The following is the definition given by Rome as to who constitutes a member of their church : The church is an assembly of men, united in a profession of one and the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the government of their lawful pastors, as especially of the Eoman pontiff.— Bellarmine. Christian experience and a holy life count lit- tle in Rome. A mere profession of faith, ob- servance of sacraments, and submission to the government of the Pope, are all the essentials of membership. How different from the prim- itive church ! Those who separate themselves from Christ, but not from the Pope of Rome, cease to be mem- bers of the true church, because Christ, not the Pope, is the head of the church. "If any one abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch" (John 15:6). "Every branch in me, that bear- eth not fruit, he will take away" (John 15: 2). The Lord said to Moses, "He that hath sinned against me, him will I strike out of my book"; 34 Roman Catholicism so the moment people sin against God, they cease to be members of his church. Not so with the Church of Rome. Their standard author- ities acknowledge her to be filled with "mani- fest and great sinners, heretics and infidels." From the Pope down, none of them claim to live above sin. This is why they have instituted their very sacraments and the confessional, and why they teach a future purgatory. John says, "He that committeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 3:8). Since the Church of Rome is a church of sinners, and harbors within her fold "wicked men, heretics, and infidels," judged by the standard of eternal truth she can not be the Lord's church. Her members, from the Pope down, they themselves acknowledge to be wicked men and sinners. The Church of Rome pro- nounces outside of the church of Christ all who are not subject to the See of Rome. It is a well-known fact that she never expells wicked or profane persons from her pale, provided they acknowledge the authority of the Pope and the clergy. And should the most pious person in the world deny clerical authority, in Rome's sense of it, he must be expelled from the Romish church. Many have separated themselves from the Pope who were, nevertheless, members of the true church. Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 35 HUMBLE EQUALITY OF THE PRIMITIVE MINISTRY That the Church of Rome is not the true church is also shown by the inequality in rank of her priesthood, as compared with the humble equality of the primitive ministry. To the first ministers Christ said, "Be not ye called Rabbi. For one is your Master ; and all you are breth- ren" ( Matt. 23:8). "Neither be ye called mas- ters; for one is your Master, Christ. He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be hum- bled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matt. 23:10-12). "And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them ; and they that have power over them are called be- neficient. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth.? Is not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth" (Luke 22: 24-27). Oh, what humbleness is here taught! "Ye are brethren." "No one among you is higher than another or can possibly have from me 36 Bomcm CatJiolicism jurisdiction over the rest. Ye are, in this respect, perfectly equal." Christ showed his dis- ciples how the Gentiles exalted some above others, but said that it should not be so among them. "The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: feed the flock of God . . . neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart" (1 Pet. 5: 1-3) ; "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a wit- ness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a par- taker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God . . . neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," A. V. The following are extracts from Adam Clark's comments on these verses : In this place, the term ' ' presbuteros, ' ' elders, or presbyters, is the name of an office. They were as pastors, or shepherds, of the flock of God, the Christian people among whom they lived. They were the same as bishops . . . and teachers. . . . That these were the same as bishops, the next verse proves. *'Who also am an elder," ' ' sum-presbuteros, " a fellow elder, one on a level with yourselves. ''Neither as being lords over God's heritage." Ac- cording to him [Peter] there are to be no lords over Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 37 God's heritage; the bishops and presbyters, who are appointed by the head of the church [Christ], are to feed the flock; to guide and to defend it; not to fleece and waste it: and they are to look for their reward in another world, and the approbation of God in their consciences. And in humility, self-abasement, self- renunciation, and heavenly-mindedness, they are to be ensamples, ''tupos," — types — to the flock; molds of a heavenly form, into which the spirit and lives of the flock may be cast, that they may come out after a perfect pattern. We need not ask. Does the church that arrogates to itself the exclusive title of catholic, and do its supreme pastors, who affect to be the suc- cessors of Peter, and the vicars of Jesus Christ, act in this way? They are in every sense the reverse of this. But we may ask. Do the other churches [meaning the Protestant sects], which profess to be reformed from the abominations of the above, follow the advice of the apostle in their eye? Have they pastors according to God 's own heart, who feed them with knowledge and understanding (Jer. 3:15)? Do they feed themselves and not the flock? Are they lords over the heritage of Christ, ruling with a high ecclesiastico-secular hand? The above cuts a clear line of distinction be- tween the modern lords of Babylon and the hum- ble, equal ministry of the early church. The apostle Peter placed himself on a common level with the local presbyters, and also stated that he was a fellow presbyter. In the New Testa- ment, "bishop" and "elder" are terms used in- terchangeably and applied to the same class of officers — the ministers. ' ' Bishop. ' ' In the primitive church, a spiritual over- 38 Roman Catholicism seer; an elder or presbyter; one who has the pastoral care of a church. — Webster. The same persons are called elders and presbyters, and overseers and bishops. — Scott: Com. Till the churches were multiplied [and apostatized], the bishops and presbyters were the same, — Id. Both the Greek and Latin Fathers do, with one consent, declare that bishops were called presbyters and presbyters bishops in apostolic times, the name being then common. — Whitbey. It appears that those who are called elders in this place [Tit. 1: 5] are the same as those termed bishops in verse 7. "We have many proofs that bishops and elders were of the same order in the apostolic church, though afterward they became distinct. — Adam Clark. The rulers of the church were called their presbyters or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testa- ment, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men. . . . Let no one confound the bishops of this prim- itive and golden period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though « they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects. — Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 99. It is also true that in the earliest government of the first Christian society, that of Jerusalem, not the elders only, but the ' ' whole church ' ' were associated with the apostles; and it is even certain that the terms ''bishop" and ''elder" or "presbyter" were, in the first in- stances, and for a short period, sometimes used synon- omously, and indiscriminately applied to the same order in the ministry. — Waddington: Church History, Part I, p. 41. The earliest Christian communities appear to have been ruled and represented, in the absence of the apostle who was their first founder, by their elders, who are likewise called bishops, or overseers of the Humble Eqwality of Primitive Ministry 39 church. — Millman: History of Christianity, p. 194. To aid them in their work, or to supply their places in their absence (Acts 14: 23), the apostles ordained rulers in every church, who bore the common name of ''elders" from their dignity, and of ''bishops" from the nature of their ofl&ce. That originally the elders were the same as the bishops, we gather with absolute certainty from the statements of the New Testament and of Clement of Eome, a disciple of the apostles. [See his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chaps. 42, 44.] The presbyters are expressly called bishops — compare [the Greek especially] Acts 20: 17 with verse 28, and Tit. 1:5 with verse 7. 2. The office of presbyter is described as next to the highest after that of apostle (Acts 15:6, 22). Similarly, the elders are represented as those to whom alone the rule, the teaching, and the care of the church is entrusted (1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1, etc.). ... In [several] passages of the New Testament and of Clement we read of many bishops in one and the same church. In the face of such in- dubitable evidence, it is difficult to account for the pertinacity with which Romish and Anglican the- ologians insist that these two offices had from the first been different in name and functions. . . . Even Jerome, Augustine, Urban II (1091), and Petrus Lom- bardus admit that originally the two had been iden- tical. It was reserved for the Council of Trent to convert this truth into a heresy. — Kurtz: Church His- tory, pp. 67, 68. The church was in the beginning a community of brethren, guided by a few of the brethren. All Chris- tians were priests of the living God, with humble pastors as their guides. — D'Aubigne: History of the Eeformation, Vol. I, pp. 35, 50. To the above we heartily agree. Bishop and elder were the same till the "mystery of in- 40 Roman Cafholicism iquity" began to work. The traveling preachers were bishops. "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take" (Acts 1:20). A bishopric is the office of a bishop. Judas, then, was a bishop, but by transgression he fell. So Matthias was chosen to take his bishopric — his office of bishop. This proves beyond question that all the Twelve were properly called bishops. This included Peter and John, who also were called elders, or ancients ( 1 Pet. 5 : 1 ; 2 John 1 ; 3 John 1 ) . So the terms "bishop" and "elder" were used interchangeably, and applied to all the traveling ministers. All the local preachers were bishops. "Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ; to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1). Thus when Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he ad- dressed all the saints, "with the bishops and deacons." He did not say with bishops, elders, and deacons ; but recognized only two classes of officers — bishops and deacons. A plurality of priests (elders, A. V., Acts 14: 23) were ordained in "every church" (Acts 14:22). Paul terms these elders, "bishops"; "bishop" and "elder," then, are the same in Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 41 Scripture. There were but two classes of of- ficers in the church at Philippi: bishops, the ministers of the word of truth and overseers of the flock; and deacons, the ministers of the temporal affairs of the church. To have any- thing more than this is apostasy. On Phil. 1 : 1 Adam Clark remarks : ''Bishops and deacons"; the overseers of the Church of God, and those who ministered to the poor, and preached occasionally. There has been a great deal of paper wasted in the inquiry, ''Who is meant by 'bishops' here, as no place could have more than one bishop?" . . . This is the extravagance of trifling. I believe no such officer is meant as we now term bishop. This is clear. Adam Clark readily admits that New Testament bishops were only over- seers — common preachers. He further states that it is a waste of paper and "the extrava- gance of trifling" to try to prove that there can be only one bishop in an assembly. He under- stood that the modern office of bishop was un- known in the apostolic church. These are his words: "I believe no such officer is meant as we now term bishop." The very language of Tit. 1 : 4-7 proves that priests (elders, A. V.) and bishops were the same. "To Titus, my beloved son, according to the common faith, grace and peace from God the Father and from Christ Jesus our Savior. 42 Roman CatlwUcism For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are want- ing, and ordain priests ["elders," A. V.] in every city, as I also appointed thee: if any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not subject to anger, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre." Language could not be plainer. Paul left Titus in Crete to ordain priests (elders) in every city. He says, "If any be without crime," "for a bishop must be without crime." When Paul sent to Ephesus, he did not call the bishop and his presbytery, but simply called "the ancients ["elders," A. V.] of the church" (Acts 20:17). Then in speaking to these men, he says : "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). In this verse those who were called "ancients," or "elders," in verse 17 are termed "bishops." Paul puts all the ministers of the church at Ephesus on a common level — bishops ; and this text further proves that there were a number of bishops in the Ephesian church. When the apostles set churches in Humble Equality of Primitive Ministry 43 order, they did not ordain one bishop and his presbytery, but simply "ordained priests [eld- ers," A. v.] in every church" (Acts 14:22). Paul did not instruct Titus to ordain one bishop and a presbytery of elders for his sanhedrin in every city in Crete, but left him to simply "ordain priests ["elders," A. V.] in every city." At Philippi there was no such thing as a sin- gle bishop, a lower class called elders, and a still lower class called deacons ; but there were only two classes of officers — bishops and dea- cons (Phil. 1:1). Did the church at Antioch send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to con- sult the bishop, the apostles, and the elders about circumcision ? No ; they simply sent them "to Jerusalem unto the apostles and priests ["elders," A. V.] about this question" (Acts 15:2). Nothing is said of the bishop. When they reached Jerusalem, "they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients" (v. 4). The bishop was left out. Why.? They did not have such a high officer over them. That church was pure from the mystery of in- iquity. "But," says one, "James was a bishop." James was an apostle (Gal. 1:19); hence he was no more a bishop than was Peter or any other of the apostles. Who came together to consider the matter.? The bishop (James), the 44 Bowman Catholicism apostles, and the elders ? No ; it does not read that way. "And the apostles and ancients ["el- ders," A. v.] assembled to consider of this mat- ter" (Acts 15:6). No mention is made of a bishop presiding in tliis apostolic .assembly. Only apostles and ancients (elders) are men- tioned. As before proved, all the apostles were bishops, and all the ancients, or elders, were bishops. The apostles were the traveling elders, or bishops, while the others were the local el- ders, or bishops. Peter and James spoke in this assembly, as they were looked upon by the church as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). But James was only an apostle, or elder, in the church at Jerusalem. He probably was a senior elder, as is inferred from Acts 21 : 18. "But," says one, "was not the angel of the church at Ephesus a bishop over the rest?" (Rev. 2:1). No; for when Paul called the ministers together, as recorded in Acts 20, he addressed them as bishops. They were all bish- ops — overseers. No doubt there was, however, one among them who especially ministered the word and took the special care of the church upon himself; but there was not a bishop who had authority over the rest, for they were all on the same level. This humble equality of the early ministry lasted but a very short time. Bow tJie Papacy Arose 45 HOW THE PAPACY ROSE We have already seen the humble equality of the apostolic ministry. As the saints began to fall away and drift from the primitive faith, they lost sight of this humble equality and be- gan to exalt men, as seen in Second Thessa- lonians. Paul said that the mystery of iniquity was already working. The spirit of it was then manifest in some persons. In the Third Epistle of John it is evident that three elders of the church are spoken of ; namely. Gains, Demetrius, and Diotrephes. The first two John com- mended. They were straight, humble men. But Diotrephes loved to have the preeminence among them. He no doubt wanted to be a bishop, to be higher than the common presbytery. He did not want to receive the apostle John (v. 9), for he knew that John was against any such exalta- tion. But John comforted Gains by saying, "If I come, I will advertize his works" (v. 10). Here is the first mention in Scripture of one man seeking preeminence above the other elders in the local assembly — seeking a position over the others. This was A. D. 90. Just as soon, however, as we pass beyond the sacred writings, in the second century, we find a man exalted to a higher office — a bishop over the common 46 Roman Catholicism presbyters or elders. This was apostasy al- ready at work. I will here quote from the Church Fathers to show that in their early day one man had been already exalted above the rest. Instead of elders and deacons, as the New Testament reads, it was one bishop, elders, and deafcons — three classes of officers instead of two — one over the others. Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. — Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chap. IV. Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and ApoUonius, and through my fellow servant the deacon Sotio. — Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. 11. There is but one altar for the whole church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons. — Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chap. IV. Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. — ^Chap. VII. The bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons. — Ignatius to Polycarp, Chap. VI. These quotations from Ignatius, who wrote in the first part of the second century, show that at that early date the humble equality of the apostolic order was already changed and a third office created by exalting in each local congregation one man as bishop over the com- How the Paxmcy Arose 47 mon elders, or presbyters. How different are the above quotations from the sacred Scrip- tures ! At Philippi, Paul addressed the bishops and deacons, but Ignatius taught that at the time of his writing there was *'one bishop, with the presbyters and deacons." When Paul sent to Ephesus and called together the local min- istry, he called the "ancients [elders] of the church"; but when Ignatius wrote, he would have had to call the bishop and the elders. When Paul left Titus in Crete, he was to or- dain priests (elders) in every city; but when Ignatius wrote, he would have had to ordain "a bishop and elders." Ah, beloved reader, this is the working of the "mystery of iniquity." It was the first big step toward the man of sin. As soon as this third office was created, and in each assembly one bishop was set up over the elders and the deacons, the next step was to confer great honors upon him and to exalt him high above all others. Ignatius, in the latter part of his ministry, was drunk on this spirit. I will again quote: As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, . . . so do ye, neither presbyter, nor dea- con, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. — Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chap. VII. In like manner, let all* reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus 48 Roman Cafholicism Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presby- ters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these there is no church. — Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap. III. And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ him- self. . . . For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop?— Chap. VII. "Reverence your bishop as Jesus Christ" and "do nothing without the bishop" — that is get- ting him pretty high. But such was the spirit then at work. In the early church, the presby- tery was an assembly of ministers. If a number of local preachers assembled, they constituted a presbytery ; and a gathering of both traveling and local elders, as at Jerusalem (Acts 15), was properly termed a presbytery; but when Ignatius wrote, the presbyters were common el- ders who served as counselors and assessors of the bishop. Oh, how changed! Humble equal- ity was lost sight of. Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers, to those that command them; deacons, to the presbyters, as to high priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to the bishop. — Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chap. IV. If this was not making great strides toward How the Papacy Arose 49 popery, I can not understand language. The bishop was exalted above all "the clergy," even above Caesar himself, and this in the second cen- tury. Such was the teaching of Ignatius. Sure- ly the great apostasy came early. Of course the bishop had not, in reality, yet reached such a high place, but the people were working hard to get him there, and Ignatius' writings show that he believed such was the bishop's place. Again we quote: See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the mul- titude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church. It is not law- ful* without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God. — Ignatius to the Smyrnasns, Chap. VIII. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. . . . Nor is there any one in the church greater than the bishop. . . . He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God. . . . Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presby- ters; the presbyters to the bishops. — Chap. IX. If he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. But it becomes both men and women who 50 Roman Catholicism marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop. — Ignatius to Polycarp, Chap. V. Thus we have given a few quotations from the early writings to show how soon the humble equality of the apostolic ministry was over- thrown and man exalted. This kept working more and more. The bishop was lifted up higher and higher, until about the third century ; then a higher office was created. After that date we have a class of officers called archbishops — bish- ops over other bishops. Sometimes one bishop would rule over the bishops of a score of churches. This was forming the man of sin. In the Church of God there is but one chief shepherd, one chief bishop — Christ — but at that date there was an exalting of man to this lofty position. This kept on working and fomenting, man being exalted higher and higher until final- ly the pope was elected head of the church — so-called. Instead of Christ working all in all, in all the members, man-power ruled the church. SUPREMACY OF THE POPE The following quotations from standard Catholic authors set forth their belief in the supremacy of the pope: St. Thomas afl&rms that the pope, by divine right, Supremacy of the Pope 51 hath spiritual and temporal power, as supreme king of the world; so that he can impose taxes on all Chris- tians, and destroy towns and cities for the preservation of Christianity. — Acquinas: Rule of Princes, as quoted by Bellarmine in De Pontiff, V. 5. The pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not simply man, but, as it were, God and the vicar of God. Hence the pope is of such supreme and solemn dignity that, properly speaking, he is not merely con- stituted in dignity, but is rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence also the pope is father of fathers; and he alone can use this name, because he only can be called father of fathers, since he possesses the primacy over all, and is truly greater than all, and the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he is presumed to be such. On account of the excellency of his supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, ordinary of ordinaries, universal bishop of the church, or diocesan of the whole world, divine monarch, su- preme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven, of earth, and of (infernorum) hell. Nay, the pope's excellence and power is not only above heavenly, ter- restrial, and infernal things, but he is also above angels, and is their superior; so that if it were possible that angels could err from the faith, or entertain senti- ments contrary thereto, they couM be judged and ex- communicated by the pope. He is of such great dig- nity and power, that he occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ; so that whatsoever the pope does, seems to proceed from the mouth of God, as is proved from many doctors. The pope is, as it were, God on earth, the only prince of the faithful of Christ, the greatest king of all kings, possessing the pleni- tude of power, to whom the government of the eaxthly and heavenly kingdom is entrusted. Hence the com- mon doctrine teaches, that the pope hath the power 52 Boman Catholicism of the two swords, namely, the spiritual and temporal, which jurisdiction and power Christ himself committed to Peter and his successors, Matthew 16: ''To thee will I give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, ' * etc. — where doctors note that he did not say key, but keys, and by this comprehending the temporal and spiritual power: which opinion is abundantly confirmed by the author- ity of the holy fathers, the decision of the canon and civil law, and by the apostolic constitutions; so that those who hold to the contrary, seem to adhere to the opinion of the heretics, reprobating by Boniface VIII. . . . If a king becomes heretic, he can be removed from his kingdom by the pope, to whom the right of appointing a successor belongs. . . . Hence it is not wonderful, if to the Eoman pontiff ... to whom supreme authority and power are given, not only by the spiritual, but also by the material un- sheathed sword for just cause, of transferring em- pires, breaking sceptres, and taking away crowns. Which plenitude of power, not only once, but often, the popes used, whenever it was necessary, by binding, most courageously, the sword on their thigh, as is suffi- ciently manifest not only from the most ample testi- monies of theologians, the asserters of pontifical and regal right, but also of innumerable historians of un- doubted credibility, as well profane as sacred, as well Greek as Latin. — Ferraris Ecclesiastical Dictionary, art. 2. (Used as a standard for Eoman Catholic divin- ity.) ''AH power in heaven and earth" was given to the pope . . . for the pope is greater than man, as saith Hostensius, but less than an angel, because he is mortal; but greater in authority and power. For an angel can not consecrate the body and blood of Christ, nor absolve or bind, the jurisdiction of which exists in a plenary manner in the pope; nor can an angel ordain, grant indulgences, or any such thing. He is crowned Swpremacy of the Pope 53 with glory and honor; the glory of commendation, be- cause he is not only called blessed, but most blessed, as saith the canon law. Who can doubt that he is holy, whom the summit of such great dignity hath exalted? He is crowned with the honor of veneration, that the faithful may kiss his feet; for greater honor can not exist than that mentioned by the Psalmist: ^' Adore his footstool." Psa. 98 [99:5, A. V.]. He is crowned with the greatness of authority, because he judges all per- sons, and is judged of none, unless he is found an apostate from the faith. Hence also he is crowned with a triple crown. And is constituted over all the works of his hands, to regulate concerning all inferiors; he opens heaven, sends the guilty to hell, confirms empire, orders the clerical orders. — Antinonus, Arch- bishop of Florence, part 2, tit. 22, c. i. sec. 1. The pope is the head of all heads, and the prince, moderator, and pastor of the whole church of Christ which is under heaven. — ^Benedict XIV: De Synodo, Lib. ii, cap, 1. The Eoman pontiff is called by this name, not only because he has the supreme honor and dignity in the church, but especially, because he hath the supreme and universal authority, power, and jurisdiction over all bishops and the universal church. — Peter Dens: Eccles. 90 tom. ii, p. 430. All the faithful, also bishops and patriarchs, are bound to obey the Eoman pontiff. . . . The pope has not also only a directive, but also a coactive power over all the faithful. — Dens: Id. 94, p. 439. The pope of Eome hath the supremacy over all the earth; that he is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of the church, the father and teacher of all Christians; and that Jesus Christ hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, the power to feed, rule, and govern the Catholic Church, as it is explained in the acts of oecumenical councils and in 54 Roman Catholicism the holy canons. — Decision of the Council of Flor- ence, July 5, 1439. Du Pin: Ec. Hist., Vol. Ill, p. 35. I have quoted at some length from these Catholic authorities, to show the blasphemous claims of Romanism. Surely this fulfils what is said in Revelation 13 of the leopard beast, that "there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies." "And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name." Think of it! They say of the pope: "He is not simply man, but as it were God" ; "Placed on the very sum- mit of dignity"; "He is truly greater than all, and the greatest of all"; "Called most holy"; "Divine monarch"; "Supreme emperor, and king of kings" ; "King of heaven, of earth, and of hell"; "Above heavenly, terrestrial, and in- fernal things"; "Above angels, and their su- perior"; "Angels . . . could be judged and excommunicated by the pope" ; "The pope is, as it were, God on earth"; "The only prince of the faithful in Christ, the greatest king of all kings" ; "All power in heaven and earth is given to the pope" ; "The pope is greater than man" ; "Adore his footstool" ; "He judges all persons, and is judged of none"; "He opens heaven, sends the guilty to hell" ; "The pope is the head of all heads." Thus is fulfilled to the letter the Supremacy of the Pope 55 prediction of St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, that after the "revolt" ("falling away," A. V.) the man of sin would be revealed, "the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." When we consider the above claims of the Church of Rome in the light of the fact that they themselves admit that many of their popes were the basest of criminals and the enemies of all godliness, notoriously wicked, and heretics, we see most clearly her utter corruption, and that she is truly the apostate church. The concubinage of the clergy is known to all", and can not be denied by any, with any modesty. — Ger- hard: De Ecclesia, sec. 251, p. 425. They have encouraged frauds and thefts. — Id., p. 426. IMany popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians; some were noted for sedition, war, and slaughter; for profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. — Id., sec. 263, p. 438. The cardinals were also noted for pride, luxury, avarice, and other crimes. — Id., sec. 264, p. 439. The morals of the bishops, priests, and other clergy were equally depraved. — Id., sec. 265, p. 440. The morals of the people correspond to those of the clergy. This is not marvelous, seeing they are de- prived of the Scriptures, are not instructed in the principles of the word of God, and are the dupes of ignorance and superstition. — Id., sec. 268, p. 441. These quotations from Roman authorities, 56 Boman Catholicism we deem sufficient proof of the corruption of that church from her head down through the clergy, and throughout the general membership. As before stated, many of the popes are acknowledged by Rome to have been rank her- etics. "Zepherinus was a Montanist." — Tertul, adv. Prax. "Marcellinus was an idolator." — Damasus in Pontif, "Liberius was an Arian; Anastasius was a Nestorian; Vigilius a Euty- chian; Honorius was a Monothelite; Sylvester was a Magician." Thus we see that men of the most infamous moral character, guilty of almost every mortal sin, have filled St. Peter's {?) chair. Is it pos- sible that such monsters of wickedness are the representative heads of the pure Church of God — that church which St. Paul informs us is "a glorious church, not having spot or wrin- kle," but is "holy, and without blemish".? No. Judged by their own admissions, the Roman Catholic Church is herself in the very depths of apostasy. As to their claim that the pope has power to wield the temporal sword over kings and rulers, history attests the fact that this authority was exercised on many occasions. In the year 730, Gregory II excommunicated the emperor Leo Isaurius, because he was against the worship Rome's Claim to Infallibility 57 of images. Gregory VII, who was made pope in 1073, deposed Henry IV in the year 1075. In the year 1239 Gregory IX excommunicated the emperor Frederick II, absolving his subjects from their oaths of allegiance. Pope Innocent IV both held and exemplified the same doc- trine, declaring the same Frederick II to be his vassal. Pope Paul II, in 1535 and 1538, excom- municated, cursed, deposed, and damned Henry VIII, of England, and all who adhered to, fa- vored or obeyed him. Pope Pius V, in the year 1570, in his bull against Elizabeth, says, "The damnation and excommunication of Elizabeth, queen of England, and her adherents." These are but a few examples of many that could be cited. ROME'S CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY It has always been the claim of the Church of Rome that she is infallible. As to just where this infallibility lies there is some difference of opinion among the Roman doctors. In the Episcopal oath of the highest clergy, every archbishop, bishop, and dignitary elect, swears : From henceforth he will be faithful and obedient to his lord the pope; will defend the regalities of St. Peter against all men; will endeavor to preserve, de- fend, increase, and advance his right, honors, privi- 58 Roman Catholicism leges, and authority, and to his power hinder the contrary. In the creed and oath of Pope Pius IV, all the clergy swear: I acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Eoman church, the mother and mistress of all churches; I prom- ise and swear true obedience to the Eoman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. — Article 13. The pontiff can not err in any case, when he teaches the whole church in those things which belong to faith. — Bellarmine: De. Pontifice iv, 3. This same champion of the Romish church further says in the next chapter of his work : The pontiff can not err by judicial error; that is, when he judges and defines a question of faith. But this one church, because governed by the Holy Ghost, can not err in faith and morals, it necessarily follows that all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, because guided by the spirit of dark- ness, are sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doc- trinal and moral'. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 100. The pope of Eome hath the supremacy over all the earth; that he is the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of the church, the father and teacher of all Christians; and that Jesus Christ hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, the power to feed, rule, and govern the Catholic church, as it is explained in the acts of QEcumenical councils and in the holy canons. — Decision of the Council of Flor- ence, Du Pin, Eccl. Hist., Vol. Ill, p. 35. Jesus Christ has granted to St. Peter and his suc- cessors, as often as they speak in the chair, ex cathedra, the same infallibility which he had himself. . . . There is in the Eoman church an infallible judge of Bome^s Claim to Infallibility 59 controversy, even excluding a general council, as well in questions of right as those of fact. — Du Pin, Eccl. Hist., cent. 17, p. 147. The judgment of the apostolic see, with a council of domestic priests, is far more certain than the judg- ment of a universal council of the whole earth without the pope. — Barrow on Supremacy, p. 395. "We confess and believe that the pope of Eome is the head of the church, and that he can not err. — Confes- sion of faith drawn up by the Jesuits, 19th century, art. 2. A general council, with the pope at its head, or the pope himself issuing a doctrinal decision, which is received by the great body of Catholic bishops, is se- cure from error. — End of Controversy, p. 84. This well sets forth Rome's position on in- fallibility as expressed by her standard writers. This notion they base principally on the words of Jesus, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." A careful analysis of the text, however, proves that Christ did not promise infallibility, but perpetuity, to the church. He did not say that the church should not err, but that it should not perish. These infallible {?) popes have contradicted each other! Gregory the Great, of the sixth century, says: "I confidently say, that whoso- ever calls himself the universal priest, or de- sires to be so called, in his arrogance is a forerunner of antichrist." — Greg. Max. Ep., Lib. vi, op. 30. Many popes since Gregory's time have declared that the Roman pontiff is 60 Roman Catholicism universal bishop. Gregory VII declares "that the Roman pontiff alone can be properly called universal." — Ep.y lib. ii, ep. 55. Again Inno- cent I and his followers, till Pope Gelasius, asserted the communion of infants as necessary ; but this was condemned by the subsequent pope. Popes Le^ and Gelasius condemned communion in one kind, while all modern popes enjoin it. Gregory the Great condemned the worship of images and the canonicity of the books of Mac- cabees. These have been adopted by the sub- sequent popes. Stephen VI, in a provincial council held at Rome, annulled all the acts of Formosus, one of his predecessors. John IX, his successor, in a council held at Ravenna, an- nulled Stephen's acts with respect to Formosus. Sergius annulled the acts of Formosus a second time. All this was with respect to matters of faith and practise in the church, in which things Rome teaches that the bishop can not err. You see that the facts of history prove the claims of Rome to be entirely baseless. A number of these so-called infallible popes have erred and were condemned as heretics by the church. Pope Vigilius erred, as pope, in first condemning and then approving a decision of the fifth general council, held A. D. 553. {Du Pin, Ec. Hist., Vol. I, p. 709.) Pope Li- Rome's Claim to InfallihUity 61 berius, in the fourth century, erred, as pope, in condemning Athanasius, and consented to the heretical faith of the Arians, and holding com- munion with them. On this account he was anathematized by Hilary. (Du Pin, Vol. /, p. 190.) Honorius, who was made pope in 626 and died in 638, became a Monothelite, that is, he believed there was in Christ but one will and one operation. Forty-two years after his death he was condemned in the Council of Constanti- nople, held A. D. 680, and he must of conse- quence have been a heretic, if it be true that a general council can not err. The most cele- brated Roman doctors acknowledge the heresy of Honorius. The Council of Basil pronounced Pope Eugenius, a pertinacious heretic, deviating from the faith. (Concil. Basil., Sess. ^^.) There is one crime of which many popes have been guilty, and it is called by Gregory VII the heresy of simony. (Ep., lib. Hi, 7.) If it be said these were no popes, be it so. Then there were no true popes for centuries, and therefore no infallibility nor head to the church. Again, what becomes of the infallibility of popes when, as we shall prove, there were two or three popes at the same time, each excom- 62 Eoman Catholicism municating the others and claiming at the same time to be infalhble? And again, "many popes were extremely wicked men." — Ousley, 5th ed., p. 107. Du Pin, Ec. Hist., Vol. II, p. 176. Reader, mark well the fact that these Roman bishops who contradicted each other in matters of faith — many of whom were condemned by general Roman councils as heretics and in error, a number of them guilty of simony, some of them extremely wicked men, sometimes as many as three of them claiming to be pope at the same time, each condemning the other — are the very men Rome claims as her living, visible head, her infallible teachers in matters of faith. The General Councils of Rome have contra- dicted each other, which proves their fallibility. The Council of Nice, in 325, and of Ephesus, in 431, decree with an anathema "that no new article for ever shall be added to the creed or faith of Nice." But the Council of Trent, more than twelve hundred years after, added twelve new articles to this very creed, pronouncing an anathema on all who will not embrace them. The Council of Laodicea, in 360 or 370, and the Council of Trent, in 1545, have decided in direct opposition to each other respecting the canon of Scripture. The former decided on the Rome's Claim, to Infallibility 63 canon which Protestants acknowledge, rejecting the apocrypha, and the latter pronounced the apocrypha to be canonical. The Council of Constantinople, in 754, unan- imously decreed the removal of images and the abolition of image-worship; but the second Council of Nice, in 787, decreed that image-wor- ship should be established. Respecting the supremacy of the pope, coun- cils have differed. The first Council of Nice, canon sixth, decreed that the bishop of Con- stantinople should possess equal privileges with the bishop of Rome. Every one knows how this has been since contradicted, by both councils and popes. {Du Piriy Vol. /, p. 600.) In the year 1215 the fourth Council of Lat- eran decreed that the bread and wine in the sac- rament of the eucharist underwent a physical change, which they termed transubstantiation. This Council received positive historical evidence that during the first five centuries, at least, the Catholic church, so far from teaching the doc- trine of a physical change, positively, explicitly, and controversially denied such a change. Thus it is manifest, since the Catholic church at one period denied the doctrine of transubstantia- tion and at another time maintained it, it is impossible that she should be infallible. 64 Roman CatJiolicism Besides, how can we believe in the infallibility of assemblies that taught doctrines at once un- just and subversive of society, and in which the adulation of the pope is carried even to blas- phemy? Could the fourth Council of Lateran be infallible, in which the pope was acknowl- edged to possess the power of disposing of the temporalities of sovereigns, of depriving them of their crowns, and of delivering their subjects from the oath of allegiance? Could the fifth Council of Lateran be infallible, which, in its first session, gave to the pope the appellation of "prince of the universe" and praised Boniface VII for having taken the kingdom of France from Philip the Fair? which, in its second ses- sion, called the Roman pontiff a priest and king, who is to be adored by all people, and who is very like unto God? which, in its fifth session, spoke of Leo X in these terms : "Weep not, daughter of Zion, for behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David; behold God hath raised thee up a Savior"? Thus'^ey ap- plied to a sinner the prophetic words which designate the Savior of the world. Could the Holy Spirit inspire such blasphemies as these? The thirteenth session of the Council of Trent declares that the bread becomes onli/ the body, and the wine becomes onlt/ the blood of 75 Peter the Foundation f 65 Christ: "There becomes a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood." But the twenty-first session of the same Council declares that under one kind only the whole and perfect Christ and true sac- rament is taken: "If any one shall deny that the whole and entire Christ, the fountain and the author of all grace, is received under the species of bread alone, let him be accursed." Thus the Council of Trent contradicts itself, and therefore can not be infallible. The de- cisions of this Council are the standard for Roman belief. Since the General Councils, as well as the popes of Rome, contradict each other, which the pages of history and the standard Catholic authorities clearly attest, we are forced to con- clude that all their boasted claim to infallibility is baseless. Thus we remove one of the main pil- lars that supports the entire Roman structure. IS PETER THE FOUNDATION? The whole Roman contention that the Church of Rome is the primitive church rests on the assumption that Peter was selected by the Lord 66 Roman CatJiolicism to be the foundation upon which the Christian church was built ; that to him were delivered the keys of the kingdom; that Peter set up his See at Rome, and became the first universal bishop of the church. The above supposition, however, is without any support in the Word of God. Peter did not possess or exercise a, primacy of superiority, in power, command, or jurisdiction over the other apostles ; and Peter had not, by our Lord's appointment, or by divine right, supremacy over the other apostles. It is prob- able that he excelled some of the other apostles in personal endowments and ability. He was a man of quick apprehension, bold spirit, activity, industry, and zeal, and he was closely attached to Christ. But to say that the Lord conferred upon him the position of universal bishop, or pope, over all the rest, is false. "And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi; and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? But they said: Some John the Baptist, and others Elias, and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and 7s Peter fhe Foundation? 67 blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- vail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. 16: 13-19). The greatest advocates and writers of the Church of Rome acknowledge that this is the principal text upon which they rely for infallibility in their church and for the suprem- acy of the pope. If this fails them, their struc- ture must fall. On this text, as far as pertains to the present subject, we remark: When Jesus asked the im- portant question, "Whom do you say that I am.?" Peter, who was impulsive and always quick to act and speak, answered, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." But all the other disciples made the same confession of faith. "And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying : Indeed thou art the Son of God" (Matt. 14:33). "And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6: 70). Nathaniel, as well as Peter, had this fact revealed to him — "Thou 68 Roman Catholicism art the Son of God" (John 1 : 49). "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." The construction of the original plain- ly distinguishes between Peter and the rock. If it were written, "Upon this Peter I will build," then, of course, the Apostle would be referred to. "Peter" is from the Greek p^tros, which means strictly a piece of a rock — a stone. To suit the Catholic contention, the construction of the text must be: "Thou art petros [stone], and upon this petros [stone] I will build my church." But such is not its construction. "Thou art petros [a little stone], and upon this petra [rock] I will build my church." The dignity of the real foundation, expressed by the figure of petra, or rock, is superior to that ex- pressed by the word petros, or stone. "Peter" does not mean "a rock," though it has a relative meaning to that word. The one is masculine, the other feminine. Nothing less could be understood by petra — rock — than our Lord's divine dignity, as declared by Peter in the pre- ceding context, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." I affirm that our Lord referred to this declaration of Peter, relating to his own divine dignity, as being the true rock upon which he would build his church, and this is es- tablished by the clear distinction made by Christ Is Peter the Foundation? 69 between the stone — petros — and the rock — petra, and by the accurate grammatical man- ner in which both the words are used. Christ was superior to Simon as a solid rock is superior to a movable stone. On this important point, however, we have the unmistakable testimony of the Scriptures. "The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my savior. God is my strong one, in him will I trust" (2 Kings 22:2, 3—2 Sam. 22:2, 3, A. v.). Even the Old Testament saints, in type and shadow, "all drank the same spiritual drink ; and they drank of the spiritual rock that fol- lowed them, and the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10: 4). "Other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3: 11). Here we have the positive testi- mony of Scripture that Jehovah alone is the rock upon which we build, and that the New Testament church rests on Jesus Christ. He is its underlying rock. The whole structure of Christianity rests upon "Christ, the Son of the living God." To apply the title "rock" to Peter, in Matthew 16, is inconsistent with the plain reference to the preceding context made by our Lord in the be- ginning of this verse — **And I say to thee" — 70 Roman CatJiolicism which points to our Lord's dignity in the pre- ceding sentence, ''Thou art Christ,'' the true foundation, or rock, on which alone the true Church of God is built. Our faith in Christ, "the Son of the living God," is the only se- curity, or rock, of our salvation. True faith, predicated on this foundation, is secure; the gates of hell can never prevail against it. Thus he who hears the sayings of Christ and does them, builds upon an eternal rock. (See Matt. 7:24, 25.) It may be objected that Christ is sometimes also termed a stone. To this I reply: That whenever the figurative expression "stone" — lithos — is applied to Christ, it is always with such a clear distinction of superiority over all other figurative stones as will not admit the idea of any vicarial stone in his place. For example, "Behold I will lay a stone in the foun- dations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner-stone, founded in the foundation" (Isa. 28: 16). "The stone which the builders rejected; the same is become the head of the corner" (Psa. 117: 22 — 118:22, A. v.). Peter himself quotes these scriptures and applies them exclusively to Christ. He terms Christ the "chief corner- stone," "head of the corner" (1 Pet. 2:6, 7). The whole argument of Peter clearly shows that Is Peter the Foundation? 71 there can be no other head of the church than Christ himself. It is pretty clear that the epistle of Peter from which the above quotation is taken was written about A. D. 60. According to Roman Catholic computation, Peter had already been sitting seventeen years upon his papal throne at Rome as universal bishop and head of the church. But Peter's language clearly shows that he knew nothing of the appointment of any vicar on earth to represent that rock, or eter- nal head of the church. Peter further says that all Christians are "as lively stones built up, a spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5). That Peter constituted a foundation-stone in the building we do not deny. But all the other apostles held the same position. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2: 20). John, in speaking of the church in the apocalyptic vision of the new Jerusalem, says, "The city had twelve foun- dations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). The apostles were termed "foundation-stones" because upon their testimony concerning the person, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, the faith of all Christians is grounded. This 72 Bommi Catholicism truth was maintained and propagated by their preaching, by their holy practise, and by their miraculous performances. We believe on Christ through their word (John 17:20). Thus in reality the gospel of Jesus Christ constitutes the great foundation of our Christian faith, and Christ is the underlying rock upon which the gospel rests. The blood of his atonement and his triumphant resurrection from the dead is the power, theme, and inspiration of the gos- pel. Remove this, and the whole structure of Christianity falls to the ground. Thus we see the truth of Paul's statement that "other foun- dation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus." But the gospel has come to us through the apostles' inspiration and writing. It is upon their testimony we rely. This is the sense in which they constitute foun- dation-stones in this building. As to the keys of the kingdom delivered to Peter, it is true that he was specially chosen of the Lord as the apostle to the circumcision. On the memorable day of Pentecost, when the Chris- tian church was fully organized, Peter was the instrument used in preaching the gospel, and at that time thousands of the Jews were converted to God. Also the Lord made choice that by him the Gentiles should hear the glad tidings. Thus Is Peter the Foundatimif 73 by Peter was opened the door through which the Gentiles, as well as the Jews came into posses- sion of the blessings of the kingdom and into membership in the Church of God. In connec- tion with the delivery of the keys of the king- dom, Jesus said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven," etc. This binding and loosing is effected by the preaching of the gospel. By reference to Matt. 18 : 18 it will be seen that this same power to bind and to loose was bestowed upon all the apostles, and no doubt applies to the entire ministry in the Christian dispensation. It is clear that neither Peter nor the rest of the apostles understood the words of Jesus as promising to Peter a supremacy over the others. Would they have contended among themselves which should be the greatest, had they under- stood, as the Romanists claim, that this was al- ready settled by our Lord.^^ Christ rebuked this very spirit by calling attention to the way the Gentiles exercised lordship over each other, and said, "But it is not so among you." It was after this that he told them, "Be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren." Lordship and domination are an abomination in the sight of God. Paul never recognized the supremacy of Peter, 74 Roman Catholicism for he says, "I suppose that I have done noth- ing less than the great apostles" (2 Cor. 11 : 5). "I am not a whit behind the very chiefest apos- tles," A. S. V. In the discharge of his office, immediately after his call and commission from Christ, without consulting or taking license from any man, he applied himself to his work. "Immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood. Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me" (Gal. 1: 16, 17). "For I have no way come short of them that are above measure apostles" (2 Cor. 12:11). This positively denies the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy over the others. There is as much ground to say that Paul was the uni- versal bishop of the church as to claim such an office for Peter; for Paul says that there came upon him daily "the solicitude for all the churches." He speaks of James and John as equal pillars in the church with Peter (Gal. 2:9). While the gospel of the circumcision was in a special manner bestowed upon Peter, the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Paul. The field of the latter was much larger than that of the former. Paul, in speak- ing of the other apostles, Peter included, says "What they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man" (Gal. Is Peter the Foundation f 75 2:6). On one occasion, Paul withstood Peter and reproved him before all, "because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2: 11-14). All this proves that the contention for Peter's supremacy over the rest is a mere invention of the Church of Rome and that such a thing was not known or recognized by the primitive church and min- istry. In the church at Corinth there were sev- eral parties — "I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" (1 Cor. 1 : 12). If it were so, that Peter was sovereign of the apostles, is it not remarkable that any Christian should prefer any other apostle to him? Is it not strange that Paul did not here say something with reference to Peter's supremacy .^ Ah, the fact is he knew of no such thing; in fact, he taught the very con- trary: "Let no man therefore glory in men" (1 Cor. 3:21). When the great controversy arose over cir- cumcision and other matters, there was no re- course to Peter as the supreme head or judge of controversies. The brethren sent to the apostles and priests (elders) to inquire about the question (Acts 15 : 2). When they arrived, "they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients [elders]" (v. 4). "And the apostles and ancients [elders] assembled to 76 Roman CatJiolicism consider of this matter" (v. 6). Peter did not call, convene, or summon this council, or as- sembly, for they met by common agreement; neither did he preside in the meeting. It is evi- dent from a careful reading of Acts 15 that James, who was a senior elder and no doubt the recognized pastor of the church at Jerusalem, presided at this great meeting. Though Peter spoke, he did not preside here; and mark the fact that this was the first great ecclesiastical council of the church on record. This proves that that great assemblage of primitive minis- ters and apostles did not recognize Peter as the vicar of Christ on earth nor as the visible head of the church. Nor did Peter send his legates to Antioch, to signify what he and his council had done; but "then pleased it the apostles and ancients [elders], with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch" (v. 22). Nor was the decree sent in the name of Peter. "The apos- tles and ancients [elders], brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting" (v. 23). Instead of Peter having supremacy over the rest, the record proves him to have been sub- ject to their judgment and direction. "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem had Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 11 heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John" (Acts 8: 14). There were times when the other ministers called Peter to account for his action (see Acts 11 : 2, 3). How different the actions of the Church of Rome, who say of their bishop "that he was to judge all men, and none him; nor was he to be reproved by any mortal man, though by his impiety and ill example he car- ried thousands to hell with him." — Si. Papa., dist, 40.. WAS PETER EVER BISHOP OF ROME? This point is vital, for the papacy is prac- tically built upon the assumption that Peter went to Rome, set up his See there, and became the first bishop. On this supposition, Peter Dens bases his argument that the church of Rome is the true apostolic church. Because it hath a legitimate and uninterrupted suc- cession of bishops, especially in the very seat of Peter, . . . or to the Eoman seat founded by Peter. — Dens: De Eccl'es., No. 78, p. 402. It is apostolical on account of the ministry, whose pastoral order, commenced by the apostles, has suc- ceeded to our time without intermission. — Bailly: De Apostolicity Ecclesia, p. 356. You see Romanists lay great stress on this point, for everything depends upon it. If they 78 Roman Catholicism fail here, all is lost. In this chapter I will pre- sent the following facts and truths, which com- pletely overthrow and demolish the underlying rock and foundation of the papacy. First, The continuation of this succession is attended with great difficulties, — "Tertullian places Clement after Peter. Jerome does the same, and this opinion is supported by the canon law. But Optatus places Linus after Peter, and makes Clement third. Augustine does the same. Irenaeus places Linus after Peter, then Cletus, and in the fourth place, Clement." Others of these Catholic Fathers arrange them still dif- ferently. This proves that there was a great deal of guesswork about the matter of succes- sion. On this guesswork rests the papacy. Second, This supposed succession of popes was interrupted hy repeated vacancies. — The Roman Catholic Platina is authority for the statement of the fact that "after John III, the Roman seat was vacant ten months and three days ; after Pelagius II, six months and twenty- eight days ; after Gregory, five months and nine- teen days ; after Fabian, eleven months and twenty-six days ; after Boniface III, six months and twenty-five days ; after Severinus, four months and twenty-nine days ; after Martin I, fourteen months ; after Vitalianus, four months Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 79 and fifteen days; after Paul, one year and one month; after Nicholas I, eight years, seven months, and nine days," etc. This makes sev- eral big gaps in Rome's uninterrupted succes- sion. Third, RoTne^s succession of bishops was in- terrupted by various schisms among the popes themselves. — Roman authorities admit twenty- eight schisms that happened in the Roman seat. The twenty-seventh schism, between Urban VI and Clement VI, lasted thirty years. Catholic historians admit that there were times when as many as three popes, all claiming supremacy at once, excommunicated and cursed one an- other in a shocking manner. It is preposterous to attempt to trace the succession of bishops through those centuries. Yet this supposed suc- cession is what Rome depends on to prove that she is the apostolic church. Fourth, Many of these popes were pro- nounced rank heretics by Roman Catholic coun- cils,, — Zepherinus was a Montanist; Marcellinus was an idolator; Liberius was an Arian; Anas- tasius was a Nestorian; Vigilius an Eutychian; Honorius was a Monethelite ; Sylvester was a Magian. This being true, the supposed Roman succession has come down through a line of bishops that Rome herself admits were rank 80 Boman Catholicism heretics. In all candor and reason I ask, Does this prove that the Church of Rome is ortho- dox? In the fear of God I affirm that this is positive proof of the heterodoxy of this insti- tution. Fifth, Men of the *'most infamous moral character, guilty of almost every mortal sin, have filled St. Peter's chair.'' — (In previous chapters of this work I have quoted standard authors of the Church of Rome who admit this fact.) It is upon these monsters of wickedness that Rome depends for the apostolicity of her church. In all the above, Rome clearly fulfils Paul's prediction that "after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you"; and Jesus' prediction that "many false prophets shall arise, . . . and because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold." In the light of the facts of history and the admission of the writers of the Roman church, we are forced to conclude that she constitutes the great apostasy of the Christian era. Sixth, Peter never was bishop of Rome. — This I will show. There is absolutely no Scrip- tural authority for such a belief. In fact, it can not be proved from Scripture that Peter was ever at Rome. It may well be asked, then. Upon what rests Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne? 81 the belief that Peter established his See at Rome and became universal bishop of the church? I answer, Upon tradition. This tradition, like most of the traditions that have come down to us, will not stand the test of a strict and im- partial historical examination. The incident at Antioch, recorded in Gal. 2: 11-14, is the last that is certainly known of Peter. The next historical mention of him is made by Clement of Rome. However, we have traditional accounts of the Apostle until the time of his death, and we may accept as alto- gether probable that some of these traditions are built around a nucleus of fact. But we have two distinct streams of tradition to con- sider. The one represents Peter's work in the West, and the other his work in the East. Cer- tain early writers, as Clement of Rome and Ignatius, may be understood to imply that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Clement, however, though mentioning both Peter and Pavd, seems to make it a distinguishing circum- stance that Paul preached both in the East and in the West, which would imply that Peter never preached in the West. Papias, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenseus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all accept the tradition of Peter's being at Rome. On the other hand. 82 Roman Catholicism the other stream of tradition (for which it is difficult to account if the first had been uni- form) to the effect that Peter labored at Anti- och, in Asia Minor, in Babylonia, and in the "country of the Barbarians" on the northern shores of the Black Sea. Now while there is no Scriptural warrant for the first line of tradi- tion, there are Scriptural evidences in support of the latter, for it is in harmony with the geographical details of the first of the two epis- tles which bear his name. The first epistle is addressed to "the strangers scattered through- out Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1). The "Babylon" from which it was obviously written (chap. 5: 13) is best understood literally, like the other geo- graphical names of the epistles in the New Tes- tament, and as signifying the Chaldean Babylon. This is the opinion held by Dr. Adam Clark, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, and other able commentators. According to the historians Philo and Josephus, Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age; whereas Jo- sephus represents the number of Jews in Rome as comparatively few, about eight thousand. Josephus lived in the time of Peter, and with reference to Babylon, he says that Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, was banished by the king Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne f 83 of Parthia and was given "permission to live in Babylon where there were many Jews and that all of the Jews who dwelt in Babylon and in the country as far as the Euphrates acknowl- edged Hyrcanus as their high priest." Peter was the apostle of the circumcision as Paul was of the uncircumcision. How natural, then, that Peter should go to the people of his own nation! At that time the Parthians were masters of Mesopotamian Babylon, and it was Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Meso- potamia" that the apostle had so successfully addressed on the day of Pentecost. His other converts on that occasion, Jewish 'dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, and Phrygia,' he ad- dresses by letter, while he ministers in person to the Parthians in Mesopotamia, sending salu- tations from them to their brethren scattered abroad. To accept the Romanist position that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years would mean to set aside his extensive work in the East, a work which undoubtedly rests upon a Scriptural foundation. On the other hand, to take the positive position that Peter never was in Rome would mean to ignore the direct state- ments of a considerable number of early writers. It is not easy to impeach the testimony of writ- 84 Roman Catholicism ers regarding statements of fact, although around an original fact may grow up a vast body of traditions, which are often wholly unre- liable; such as the legendary story of Peter's controversy with Simon Magus in Rome, as set forth in the Pseudo-Clementine epistle. No early writer suggests any other place than Rome as the scene of Peter's death, and all agree that he suffered martyrdom. But it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian Epist. 55:8, 59:14). It remained for later writers to develop this claim and to give it its prominent standing in the Romish church. Although Roman Catholics are required to accept the claims of Peter's episcopacy in Rome and to swear by it, the claim rests upon such an uncertain basis in fact that even some of their own number have felt obliged to repudiate it. Chas. Du Moulin, a great ecclesiastical lawyer of the sixteenth century, whom Father Calmet mentioned as a stedfast Roman Catholic, says : Even when after the breaking-up of the empire the bishops of Eome began to extend their authority over other churches, they never alleged or put forth this story of Peter's being at Eome; the story, I suppose, not having yet been invented. — Mission and Martyr- dom of St. Peter, Vol. 4, p. 460. Ellendorf, Roman Catholic professor at Ber- Was Peter Ever Bishop of Romef 85 lin, Bib. Sac, January 1859, 105, says : "Peter's abode at Rome can never be proved." Father Hardouin, a French Jesuit ; Frances Turretin ; De Cormeniu in his History of the Popes, and other Catholics, admit the same thing. Again we will appeal to the Bible and show that its evidences are directly opposed to the idea of Peter's long residence in Rome, as claimed by the Catholics. From what Luke says, it is evident that Peter continued in Judea till the council met at Jeru- salem (see Acts 15) to consider the question concerning circumcision and the ceremonial law, for he was present at the time. This was in the year 51, according to Bellarmine, Baronius, and others ; or in the year 49, according to Valesius ; some place it at 52. It is further evident that Peter was not at Rome when the council sat at Jerusalem, whether in 49 or 52 ; for at this time he was at Jerusalem. Paul tells us that three years after his con- version, which occurred about 37, he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and found him there. And fourteen years after, or about the year 51, he went to Jerusalem again, and then found Peter there. According to the Roman Catholic computation, in the year 51 Peter had sat eight years as bishop of Rome. And yet Paul neither 86 Boma/n Catholicism sought nor found him at Rome, but at Jeru- salem. Neither Peter nor any of the sacred writers give us the least hint that Peter was ever at Eome. We are told of his being at Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, Babylon, etc., but there is no mention of his being at Rome, the great seat of the empire. — Elliott. The silence of Paul in particular must be a convincing proof that Peter was never bishop of Rome. In Paul's Epistle to the Romans, there is no men- tion made of Peter. From Rome, he wrote to the . . . Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter. According to the accounts of the papal doctors, Peter was bishop of Rome twenty-five years, from the year 42 to the year 67. Now, there are recorded seven incidents in Paul's life connected with Rome during that period — once he wrote to the church at Rome, five times he wrote from Rome, and once he dwelt there at least two years. There is yet no hint given that Peter was there dur- ing any of these times; and it would be hard to sup- pose he was there and that Paul would take no notice of him. This will appear not only extraordinary, but even incredible, if we will only examine the circum- stances of these visitations, and the language which Paul uses on these occasions. . . . He and Timothy join in the address to the Colossian church (Col. 1:1, 2). Surely some regard would have been paid to Peter had he been there. About the year 58 he wrote his Epistle to the Ro- mans. And though he salutes numbers of persons, and Was Peter Ever Bishop of Rome? 87 those, too, of highest repute, Peter is never mentioned (see Eom. 16:3-16). Now, had Peter been at Borne at this time, as the angel, or bishop, or minister in pastoral charge of the church of Eome, surely some mention had been made of him; especially as Paul salutes so many, even calling twenty-five of them by name, with several households, and others not named. This is the more strange, as the custom was to salute those persons of greatest note, especially ministers of the word. Besides, in the Epistle to the Eomans there is no reference made to the presence of Peter at Rome previous to the year 58, though, according to the Roman Catholic account, he had been already fifteen years bishop there. Nor is there anything said in reference to his coming to or being at Rome at any future time, as head of the church, or in any other capacity. Hence the inference is that Peter never was at Rome. [Or, at any rate, that he was not there during the time of Paul's experience with that church.] In the Epistle to the Ephesians, written at Rome about 61 [or 64], there is no mention that Peter ever had been at Rome or that he was there then. . . . About the year 62 [or 64] Paul wrote to the Philip* plans. But though he associates Timothy with him- self in saluting the Philippian church in the beginning of his epistle, and associates with himself, in the salu- tations at the close of the epistle, the brethren tliat were with him, especially those of Caesar's household, there is, nevertheless, not one word about Peter. Paul wrote to the Colossians about the year 62 [or 64]. Peter was not there then, when Paul, after mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus, adds, "These only are my helpers in the kingdom of God; who have been a comfort to me'* (Col. 4:11). It is evident, therefore, that Peter was 88 Roman Catholicism not then at Eome, else he certainly would have been mentioned in the list. In the Epistle to Philemon, written from Rome about A. D. 62, no mention is made of Peter. We find when Paul appealed to Caesar, and had been sent to Rome, he tarried two full years in that city preaching the gospel, or from years 63 to 65. Never- theless, there is no account of Peter's being there on his arrival, nor during his two years' ministry, or at his departure from there (see Acts 28). The Second Epistle to Timothy was written about the year 65 or 66. Paul says [after mentioning by name certain ministers who had either forsaken him or de- parted to other fields of labor], ''at my first answer, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" (2 Tim. 4:6-16). Surely had Peter been there, he would not have forsaken him. This, too, was immediately before the death of Paul. . . . Here are six distinct times in which Paul was at Rome, or wrote to or from Rome. In one year he wrote three times from Rome. At another time he re- mained two full years preaching. From the first to the last time was a period of thirteen or fourteen years. Nevertheless, he gives no account that Peter had been expected there subsequent to any of his visits, that he was there before his arrival, or during his stay. Yet he governed the affairs of the church of Rome, gave directions for their conduct, and mentioned by name, in his salutations, all the principal Christians at Rome, whether men or women. And still he says not one word about Peter, who, according to the Romanists, had his throne at Rome, and governed the church there, previous to Paul's arrival, during his stay, and after his departure. Surely, if Peter ever had been at Rome, there would be some mention made of it by Paul. . . . And, as it can not be proved that he ever was bishop or pope of Rome, the keystone of the supremacy Was Peter Ever Bishop of Borne f 89 is taken out, and the entire fabric falls to the ground. For it must appear there is no proof . . . that he ever wrote from Rome or was bishop there. Besides, the traditionary account of Peter's being at Rome is not only contrary to the authentic account of him which we have in the New Testament, but it is inconsistent with itself. — Delineation of Roman Cathol- icism. Concerning the time of his coming to Rome the ancient writers do not agree. Eusebius saith it was in the time of Claudius; but by Hierom, who saith he sat there twenty-five years, until the last year of Nero, it must follow that he came thither the second or third of Claudius: yet Damascus saith he came to Rome in the beginning of Nero's empire, and sat there twenty- five years; whereas Nero reigned but fourteen years. He saith also that his disputation with Simon Magus was in the presence of Nero the emperor. Eusebius reporteth it under Claudius. Anterius, bishop of Rome, as Nicephorus testifieth, did write that Peter was trans- lated from Antioch to Rome, and from thence he passed to Alexandria, because he might more profit the church there. — Fulke. Had there been any solid foundation for the assumption that Peter was bishop of Rome, such confusion and contradiction of the subject would not exist. A careful, unbiased consideration of all the facts and traditions bearing on this subject leads me to the conclusion expressed by a cer- tain writer, that "while it is admitted as certain that Peter suffered martyrdom, in all probabil- ity by crucifixion, and also probable that this 90 Roman CatJiolicism took place at Rome, it has nevertheless been made pretty clear that he never was for any length of time resident in that city, and morally certain that he never was bishop of the church there." IS THE CHURCH OF ROME THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Thus Bellarmine defines the church: The church is an assembly of men, united in the pro- fession of one and the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the gov- ernment of their lawful pastors, as especially of the Eoman pontiff. — Vide Lieberman, Theol., p. 45. This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved. — Article 15, Creed and oath of Pope Pius IV. The above defines the Roman position. Sub- mission and obedience to the government "of the Roman pontiff" — the pope — is essential to membership in the Church of Rome, and this they define as the "true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved." This virtually teaches that all who do not submit to the supremacy of the bishop of Rome are lost. So they teach : It necessarily follows that all other societies arrogat- ing to themselves the name of church, because guided by the spirit of darkness, are sunk into the most per- nicious errors, both doctrinal and moral. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 100. The word "catholic" signifies (1) Universal, Is Rome the True Catholic Church? 91 or general. The Christian church is catholic in that it includes all true believers in all places and at all times. It consists of "every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9). (2) Orthodox, because it preserves the true faith, the universal faith of the gospel, which was once delivered to the saints. It is unscriptural to use the term "catholic" to designate the name of the church, as the "Catholic Church." The word "catholic" is not found anywhere in the Scripture as applied to the church. The name given to the church is "the church of god." (See Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Cor. 10:32; 1 Cor. 11:16, 22; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2: 14; 2 Thess. 1: 4; 1 Tim. 3: 5; 1 Tim. 3: 15.) The first time we have the term "Catholic Church" is in the so-called Apostles' Creed, which was not composed by the apostles at all, but was a later production. By affixing the name "catholic" to herself does not in the least prove that the Church of Rome is the orthodox, or apostolic, church. The Jews called themselves "the sons of God," and the "seed of Abraham" (John 8:33), but Jesus proved that they were not the true seed. Paul said that false apostles would call them- selves ministers of Christ and transform them- 92 Bomcm Catholicism selves into apostles of Christ. Ascribing to themselves such titles did not make them such. So with the Church of Rome. Even in the nominal sense the Church of Rome can not be said to be the catholic, or uni- versal, church. It can be clearly sustained by history that down through the ages there have been thousands and millions of religious people whose piety rated to the highest standard of any found in Rome, who did not bow to the supremacy of the Roman bishop. Many mil- lions of these were put to death by the command of the temporal kings who obeyed the injunc- tion of the pope. While the Western churches acknowledged the Roman supremacy, the East- em churches did not. These latter were just as pious and God-fearing as the former. The Roman church, then, has never been truly catholic. She is not the catholic church, though she has assumed the name. Look at the figures today. The Church of Rome numbers between 175,000,000 and 200,- 000,000. The Protestant churches number about 150,000,000. The Greek church, which is bitter against the Roman supremacy, num- bers about 90,000,000. Thus the Protestant churches and the Greek church together number about 240,000,000, or at least 40,000,000 more Is Rome tJie True CatJiolic CTiurchf 93 than the Church of Rome. Judged by their morals, the Greeks and Protestants are as much entitled to the name Christian as are the dev- otees of the Romish church. Thus by incon- trovertible facts we prove that Rome does not represent the catholic church. How much more is this true when we judge her in the light of the New Testament and prim- itive Christianity! She can not, without ab- surdity or impiety, be called the true catholic church. She is no more the universal church than the Roman jurisdiction is all heaven and earth. The Church of God contains all true believers. As salvation constitutes men mem- bers of it, all the saved are its members. No one can be a Christian outside of the divine church. The church is the body of Christ, and the body of Christ includes all the redeemed in heaven and on earth. This is one of the principal distinguishing features between the true church and the false, between the divine ecclesia and man-made insti- tutions. This one truth, the catholicity of the Church of God, locates every sect. The Church of God includes the family of God, and it is but one family in heaven and on earth ; therefore it includes in its membership every Christian — all the redeemed in paradise, and all the saved 94 Roman Catholicism on earth. Including all Christians, it is not a sect, but is the whole. Now, a church that does not include in its membership all Christians in heaven and on earth can not be God's church, hence it is a sect. This rule applies to the Church of Rome as well as to Protestant sects. Before any of these institutions arose, there were millions of Christians. It is clear that the Church of God was geographically distributed in large and flourishing congregations at Jeru- salem and throughout all Judea, Samaria, and no doubt in Asia Minor, long before there was a church at Rome. The primitive church num- bered into millions before there was even a uni- versal Roman pontiff. All these lived and died without knowing of the idolatry and supersti- tion of the Roman Catholic Church. None of the blood-washed saints in paradise are now members of any of these earth-born in- stitutions ; and right here upon earth there are tens of thousands of happy saints in robes of righteousness who have come out and now stand clear of creed-bound churches, and there are many thousands of others who are saved from sin and have never joined any sectarian institu- tion. Therefore all denominations put together, Roman, Greek, and Protestant, do not con- stitute the universal church, but are only sects. Is Rome tJie True Catholic Church f 95 In holding membership in the one universal church and in no other, we stand clear of the sin of division and are members of no sect, but members of that church to which all the saved in heaven and earth belong. This is the one and only catholic church. The Church of Rome has long laid claim to the title, Catholic Church, but in doing so they have assumed a title that does not belong to them. They are a sect — a sect, too, that includes very few real Christians. The Church of God is catholic not only in that it includes all Christians, but also in that it is destined to fill the whole earth. "And that the kingdom, and power, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, may be given to the people of the saints of the most High" (Dan. 7:27). "But the stone that struck the statue, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth" (Dan. 2:35). These texts have direct reference to the universality of the Church of God. Moreover, the religion of the Church of God will apply to all men of all nations. The Church of God gathers into her fold the rich and the poor, the educated and the illiterate, the high and the low ; in short, all classes of men. These, when saved, are on one common level of equality. Many of the religions of the world are local in 96 Bomcm Catholicism their nature and apply only to certain classes. These have adopted peculiar customs, manners, and styles of dress. But Christianity, the re- ligion of the Church of God, is not local in any sense. It is the one universal religion, the one religion that will apply to all classes of men. It imposes no peculiar local customs of manners or dress. Thus we see again the catholicity of the Church of God. The Church of Rome can not be properly called catholic in regard to place, time, or faith. It was at first confined to the city of Rome, and afterwards to the Roman states. It is a particular and not a universal church. Their proper name should be Papists, because they follow the pope. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME It has long been the claim of the Church of Rome that she is apostolic because she is one in faith and doctrine. Her doctors are bold in declaring that Protestant sects are not the true church, but heresies, because of their divided condition. I heartily agree that the church is one. She is "one body in Christ," "one family in heaven and earth," one household, one bride — "the Lamb's wife" — one "true tabernacle, The Unity of the Church of Rome 97 which the Lord hath pitched, and not man." The burden of Christ's prayer recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John was that his church in all future ages "all may be one." Of the primitive church it is said, "And the multi- tude of believers had but one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32). In the New Testament, divisions are condemned in the very strongest terms. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you ; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1 : 10). Here is a direct prohibition of all schisms, or divisions, in the body of Christ. By the standard of truth, all divisions among Christians are sinful. "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" (Rom. 16; 17, 18). "But there were also false proph- ets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shaU bring in sects of perdition" (2 Pet. 2:1-3). In Gal. 5:20 "sects" (heresies, A. V.) are declared to 98 Roman Cafholicism be the works of the flesh and are classified with idolatry, fornication, murders, drunkenness, and such like. But unity alone in a body of people is not sufiicient to prove that that body is the true church. It is necessary that unity be joined with faith and doctrine. Yet mere unity of faith and doctrine is not a mark of the true church ; it must be unity of true faith and true doctrine. "If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed" (John 8:31). Adhesion to the pope of Rome is no proper part of Christian unity. There is no Scriptural proof that the pope is the head of all Chris- tians and the one with whom they are to be in communion. Time and again Christ alone is declared to be the living head of his church. The New Testament basis of unity and that of the Roman church are in no sense identical. In the former, it is found in Christ alone. "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee ; that they also may be one in us*' (John 17: 21). "For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). "So we being many, are one body in Christ" (Rom. 12:5). "You are filled in him" (Col. 2: 10). "Ye are complete in him," A. V. Measured by the standard of all the fore- The Unity of the Church of Rome 99 going scriptures, the Church of Rome is as truly a sect as the Protestant denominations which she condemns. In matters of faith and doctrine, she is as much divided as they. The same scrip- tures with which she condemns Protestantism will condemn her. Were we to listen to the pretentions of Romanists, we would suppose that their church was one in doctrine, while the fact is, it has always been divided by a multi- tude of controversies. The clergy among them are much divided in matters of religion. They have had several schools of theology differing as widely from each other as any of the Prot- estant sects. The Lombardic theology arose in 1150 A. D. This system taught that justi- fication arose from grace and works. The Scholastic theology arose about a hundred years later. They taught that justification and sal- vation are to be obtained by human works alone. There are a number of distinct sects of the Scholastics, differing from each other, such as Thomists, Scotists, Occamists, etc. Then, there is the Monastic theology, which teaches that salvation is to be expected through papal in- dulgence, from works of supererogation, and from will-worship. They teach that images are to be adored, that confidence is to be placed in saints, that pilgrimages to holy places are to be 100 Raman CatJiolicism undertaken, monastic orders entered on, that funeral masses are to be bought. They intro- duce the legends of the saints and feigned mir- acles into their sermons. The fourth is the In- termediate theology. This system admits that we are justified by faith in Christ, springing from love. It concedes that by the merits of Christ alone we can be saved, but adds that good works are necessary to salvation. It admits that the mass is not a sacrifice propitiatory, but adds that it is applicatory, by which the merits of Christ are at length applied to us. Next in order is the Jesuitical theology. The sum of its doctrine on justification is, that habitual righteousness, or justice before God, consists of an infused habit, but actual justice in the merit of good works. Thus on justification the schools of theology in the Church of Rome dif- fer as widely as do the Protestant sects. In the light of 1 Cor. 1:10, where Paul enjoins that we "all speak the same thing," the Church of Rome stands condemned. The Franciscans and Dominicans are ever contending about several points of doctrine and discipline. The Scotists and Thomists have been always at war. The Jesuites were contin- ually at variance with the Dominicans, Benedic- tines, and other orders ; and almost ruined them, The Unity of the Church of Rome 101 especially the Benedictines. The theological colleges debate concerning almost all the doc- trines of Christianity. Ever since the time of the Council of Trent controversies of great im- portance have arisen, which divided and still divide the Church of Rome. Considerable dissension exists in the Church of Rome respecting their rule of faith. The true source, or foundation, of divinity is the Word of God alone, as it is contained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The Council of Trent adds Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Maccabees. But Cardinal Cajetan follows Jerome, who re- jects them from the canon. Arias Montanus, whom Gregory XIII calls his own son, in his Hebrew Bible, with interlineary translation, ap- proved by the Louvain doctors, says concern- ing the apocryphal books: "The orthodox church, following the Hebrew canon, numbers these among the apocryphal books." Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, referring to the senti- ment of Jerome, that the apocryphal books were inferior to the canonical, says: "And the same also saith Thomas Aquinas and Nicholaus de Lyra on Tobias, namely, that these are not of so great authority that they can be efficaciously used in argument in those things which concern faith, as the other books of Holy Scripture." 102 Roman Catholicism The fearful schisms which took place in the popedom, the boasted seat of unity, for the space of fifty-one years, namely, from 1378 to 1429, and afterward between Eugenius IV and the Council of Constance, is a plain proof of the want of that unity of which Romanists so loudly boast. At the commencement of the popedom of Clement V, in 1305, the seat of the pope was removed to Avignon in Prance, where it remained for seventy years. At the death of Gregory XI, March 27, 1378, the citizens of Eome, fearing lest a Frenchman should be chosen, came tumultuously to the conclave, and demanded that an Italian should be made pope. The cardinals, ter- rified by this uproar, chose Urban VI, a Neapolitan. Some of the cardinals withdrew from Kome to Fondi, where they elected to the pontificate Eobert, count of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII, and de- clared the election of Urban unlawful, because they were compelled by violence to the choice. W|hich of these two was the lawful pope is to this day doubtful; nor will the records and writings al- leged by the contending parties decide the controversy. Urban remained at Rome, a.nd Clement took up his residence at Avignon. Thus the union of the Latin church under one head was destroyed, and succeeded by that deplorable schism, known by the name of the Great Western Schism. '^ Christendom was divided, *' says Du Pin, the Roman Catholic: "divers kingdoms continued under the obedience of Urban, and others acknowledged Clement. This caused a bloody schism in the church." On the death of Clement, which happened in the year 1394, Benedict XIII was chosen pope by the French cardinals. Though before his election he took an oath The Unity of the Church of Rome 103 to vacate the popedom, provided the cardinals desired it, yet after he was chosen he refused to do so at their request, and thus perjured himself. The GaUican church, displeased at the proceedings on both sides, withdrew obedience from both popes in 1397, at a coun- cil held at Paris. On the death of Boniface, the Roman party, in 1404, chose Innocent VII, who was succeeded in 1406 by Gregory XII. The cardinals of Gregory and eight or nine of the cardinals of Benedict called a council, to meet at Pisa. The council excommunicated both these popes for schism, perjury, and contumacy, and elected Alex- ander V. But the decrees of the council were treated with contempt by both the pontiffs, each of whom per- formed the functions of the papacy in his respective bounds. Thus the Western church was divided into three great factions by three contending popes, who loaded each other with curses, calumnies, and excom- munications. The great end in view by the Councils of Constance and Basil was the reformation of the church in its head and members. The popes were looked upon as the head, and the bishops, priests, and monks as the members, both being exceedingly corrupt. Martin op- posed the reformation to the utmost. However, five years after the Council of Constance, in consequence of frequent remonstrances by pious persons, he called a council to meet at Pavia, whence it was removed to Sienna, and thence to Basil. He died about the time on which the council met. The council met July 23, 1431, and seriously went about the work of reforma- tion. Eugenius IV opposed reform by every possible means. For though he at first approved of the as- sembling of the council, he afterward opposed it. The council deposed Eugenius, who in 1438 collected an- other council at Ferrara, which was afterward trans- 104 Roman CatJiolicism ferred to Florence, and at the second session thundered out an excommunication against the fathers assembled at Basil, and afterward sentenced them to hell and damnation, and declared their acts null and their proceedings unlawful. The council, in 1439, chose Felix V pope in the place of Eugenius. By this means that deplorable schism which formerly rent the church was again revived, with additional aggravations; for the contest was not only between two rival' popes, but also between the contending councils of Basil and Florence. The foregoing accounts of these papal schisms were taken principally from Du Pin 's Ecclesiastical History. The calamities of these times are indescribable. The church had two or three different heads at the same time; each foiming plots and pronouncing curses upon his competitors and followers. The princes of Europe were involved in wars on this account. Many lost their lives and fortunes in the struggle. In most places, all sense of religion was lost; and profligacy of manners prevailed almost everywhere, both among clergy and laity. — Delineation of Eoman Catholicism. The limits and extent of the pope's power and jurisdiction is a subject warmly debated in the Church of Rome. On the subject of the pope's authority, Bellarmine, the great writer and defender of Rome, definitely points out four varieties of opinion in the church. The first he pronounces heretical; the second, "border- ing on heresy"; the third, "probable"; and the fourth, "most certain." — Bellarmine: De Pon- tif. Lib, IV, c. 2, Gerhard: sec. 2^2. On the subject as to where the infallibility TJie Unity of tJie Church of Rome 105 in the church lies, whether in the pope, general councils, etc., there is a great variety of opinion among the Roman clergy. A careful reading of their standard writings clearly reveals this. The church has been much divided respect- ing the doctrines of grace, predestination, and original sin. The Dominicans, Augustins, and Jansenists, with several other doctors, in the main adopt the doctrine of Augustine (the view also held by Calvin) on these subjects. The Jesuits maintain the opposite side of the ques- tion; or they are the Arminians of the Romish church, who embrace also a considerable por- tion of Pelagius's creed, especially respecting the depravity of our nature and human liberty. With respect to the administration of the sac- raments and their effects, especially those of penance and the eucharist, there is a wide dif- ference of opinion between the Jesuits and other theological branches. The supremacy of the pope is a subject of considerable controversy among the Roman doctors. If space would permit, I could prove from their own writers that on nearly all the vital points of faith, doctrine, and practise, they are greatly at variance among themselves. From the foregoing any candid reader can readily see that the Church of Rome is as much in a 106 Boman Catholicism state of discord as the Protestant sects, which she denounces as pernicious heresies. If the divided condition of Protestantism constitutes it heretical, then for the same reason the Church of Rome must be heretical. The only unity existing in the Roman church is the acknowl- edgement of the supremacy of their pontiff. INFANT DAMNATION The Council of Florence on the effects of bap- tism decided: The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual gnilt; also of all punishment which is owed for any guilt. That the law of baptism, as established by our law, extends to all', insomuch that, unless they are re- generated through the grace of baptism, be their par- ents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and everlasting destruction. — Catechism, pp. 162, 163. If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children inherit the stain of primeval guilt, is there not still stronger reason to conclude that the efficacious merits of Christ the Lord must impart to them that justice and those graces which will give them a title to reign in eternal life? This happy consummation baptism alone can accomplish. — Id., p. 163. Infants, unless baptized, can not enter heaven. — Id., p. 164. Whosoever shall affirm that baptism is indifferent, . . . that is, not necessary to salvation; let him be accursed. — Council of Trent, canon 4. Infami Damnation 107 Whosoever shall deny that the guilt of original sin is remitted by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, be- stowed in baptism; ... let him be accursed.- — Id., canon 5. Baptism washes away the stains of sin. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 152. The above sets forth the teaching of the Church of Rome on this important point. Chil- dren without baptism "are born to eternal mis- ery and everlasting destruction." They "can not enter heaven." Against this cruel, unrea- sonable doctrine I present the following facts: First, There is absolutely not one text in the New Testament that teaches infant bap- tism. It is purely a rite invented by the Romish church during the Dark Ages. Second, Infants are in a state of innocency before God, having never transgressed his law. Not being transgressors, they can not come under condemnation nor guilt. Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom of God." He also taught that conversion restores the adult to the child- hood state of innocency (see Matt. 18: 1-3). Third, Though infants are born into the world in possession of a sinful nature (Psa. 50:7 — 51:5, A. V.), they are not responsible for this, because it came through the fall of Adam (Rom. 5:12). Infants do not become responsible to God until they are old enough to 108 Roman Catholicism receive a knowledge of the commandments of God. Paul, in speaking with reference to this point, said, "I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Rom. 7 : 9, 10) . The time when he lived without the law was the state of innocent childhood. When he became old enough to re- ceive a knowledge of the law, he became respon- sible to God, and then died a spiritual death; that is, he was cut off from favor with God and came under guilt. As to those who die in in- fancy, the blood of Christ has atoned for them, and they are passive through it, and thus they enter pure into the presence of the Lord. "Christ died for all." "He tasted death for every man." From all this we rightly conclude that all chil- dren who die in infancy are saved. Fourth, The Bible plainly teaches that the Holy Spirit may be given before baptism, as in the case of Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10). Then we rightly conclude that eternal life may be had without water baptism. Fifth, If all children dying without baptism are lost, then it follows that an infinite number of innocent babes are barred out of heaven for- ever, without their fault. This is absurd in the extreme. Sixth, This teaching of Rome, which has been Transuhstantiation 109 copied by a few Protestant sects, makes the salvation of mankind dependent upon an ex- ternal rite administered by man. According to the Bible, no external rite administered by any one upon another, can cleanse from sin. The blood of Christ is the only element of cleansing. It is man's moral nature that is af- fected by sin, and only a moral cleansing can fit him for heaven. This the blood of Christ alone can effect. Seventh, The Romish doctrine of infant damnation is cruel, inhuman, and contrary to the law of a just and merciful God. It virtually debars from heaven all the myriads of innocent children who did not happen to be born of Romish parents, and were not favored (?) with a few drops of water administered by one of their priests. May God help all honest men and women to renounce such doctrine and teaching and to embrace the plain truth of the gospel instead. TRANSUBSTANTIATION The words, "This is my body" ; "This is my blood" ; employed by our Savior when he in- stituted the Lord's Supper, have been used by thousands of religionists as the foundation for 110 Eoman CatJiolicism much erroneous teaching and rank heresy. Upon them is built the CathoHc absurdity of transub- stantiation, and also the Protestant idea of for- giveness of sins through the sacrament. It is our object in this chapter to set the matter forth in its true light and at the same time to refute the erroneous ideas handed down to the people from the dark ages of superstition and apostate night. I insert the following from the Catholic cate- chism: Q. What is the holy eucharist? A. It is a sacrament, which contains the body and blood, the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, under the form and appearances of bread and wine. Q. Is it not bread and wine which is first put upon the altar for the celebration of the mass? A. Yes; it is always bread and wine till the priest pronounces the words of consecration during the mass. Q. What happens by these words? A. The bread is changed into the body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into his blood. Q. What is this change called? A. It is called Transubstantiation; that is to say, a change of one substance into another. The Council of Trent, at its thirteenth ses- sion, passed the following canons, which are supremely authoritative with Roman Catholics : Canon 1. Whosoever shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divin- Transuhstantiation 111 ity, and consequently Christ entire; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power; let him be accursed. 2. Whosoever shall affirm that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there remains the sub- stance of bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and peculiar conversion of the whole sub- stance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the species only of bread and wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fitly terms transubstantiation; let him be accursed. X 3. Whosoever shall deny that Christ entire is con- tained in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist under each species, and under every part of each spe- cies when they are separated; let him be accursed. 4. Whosoever shall affirm that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable eucharist, as soon as the consecration is performed, . . . and that the true body of our Lord does not remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels which are reserved or left after communion; let him be accursed. In the third chapter of the same session the council declares: Immediately after the consecration, the true body of our Lord, and his true blood, together with his soul and divinity, do exist under the species of the bread and wine. . . . For Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and in every particle thereof, and under the species, of wine in all its parts. The eucharist also contains Christ our Lord, the true grace, the source of all heavenly gifts. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 194. Christ whole and entire is contained in the sacra- ment. — ^p. 212. 112 Boman Catholicism The decision of the Council of Trent further states, "that the body, blood, bones, sinews, etc., of Christ, his soul and Godhead, are contained in either the bread or the wine; and after the words of consecration, it is the very God him- self." This in brief sets forth their doctrine, for I have quoted verbatim from their own standard works. In the first place, this doctrine and practise is superstitious. The Catholic priest takes a part of something that is grown in the field, that the farmers' horses, cows, swine, and chickens eat, that which constitutes a portion of our com- mon food — bread baked from the flour of wheat — and lays it upon the altar, pronounces the words of consecration over it; and, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, suddenly it be- comes God, and contains the body, soul, blood, bones, and sinews of Jesus Christ. He then kneels before it and worships it, after which he holds it between his two fingers before the con- gregation, saying in Latin, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." Then all the congregation bow their heads and worship it. There never was any mystery in any religion, pagan or Mohammedan, more un- intelligible, more inconceivable, and more against both reason and sense as this is. Transubstantiation 113 The Romanists eat their god. The rankest pagan in the world would not do such a thing. The Catholics' god is a piece of bread; and, to add to their idolatry and blasphemy, they call that bread, "the very Christ." It virtually makes the Catholics to be worshipers of a piece of bread, for that is all it is. "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat." What Christ took he broke, what he broke he blessed, and what he blessed was distributed, and what was distributed was eaten. Bread, then, was taken by Christ, therefore bread, and not flesh was eaten. The same is true of the cup which con- tained the fruit of the vine. Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17: "The bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord.? . . . For we . . . all par- take of one bread." "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice [cup, A. v.], ye do show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this BREAD, or drink the chalice [cup] of the Lord, unwfjrthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice [cup]" (1 Cor. 11 : 26-28). The Lutherans hold that Christ's presence 114 Raman Catholicism is in the communion. They differ from the Catholics in that they do not believe it is the literal body and blood of Christ that they eat. The Lutheran doctrine is as follows : The bread and the wine still remain such, but the Word connects with the bread and the wine the pres- ence of Christ himself; and those who partake of the communion, partake spiritually of the body and the blood of the Lord, and in so do- ing, receive remission of past sins. Most sects teach that when the bread and the wine are consecrated, or blessed in prayer, there is a supernatural presence of Christ in them, and that special blessing is conferred on the par- takers. "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke : and gave to his disciples" ( Matt. 26 :26 ; Mark 14:22). It is held that by the term "blessed" is meant that Jesus somehow changed the bread, consecrated it, or connected his spiritual presence therewith, and that in par- taking of it grace is ministered. Thus, about all sects hold that the sacrament is a special means of grace. Beloved reader, this is attaching more to the communion than the Lord ever intended. There is no foundation in the Scriptures for such notions. The word "blessed" in the above texts means no more than that Christ gave thanks. Transiihstantiation 115 Matthew and Mark say that he blessed the bread; while Luke, recording the same event, says, "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake" (Luke 22: 19). Many Greek copies of Matt. 26 : 26 read ''gave thanks,''^ instead of "blessed." "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thank Sy broke, and said. Take ye, and eat" (1 Cor. 11:23, 24). "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples" (Matt. 26: 26). "Jesus taking a loaf, and giv- ing praise, he broke, and gave it to the disciples" (Matt. 26:26, Emphatic Diaglott). This clearly disproves the idea that Jesus conferred any special virtue to the communion bread. He simply broke a loaf and "gave thanks." "In like manner also the chalice [cup]." "And taking the chalice [cup], he gave thanks, and gave to them" (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:27). It remained bread in his hands after he had given thanks. "Jesus took bread," "gave thanks, and brake," and "gave to his disciples." After thanks has been offered, it is only "bread, which we break" ( 1 Cor. 10:16). This fact is further proved by Christ's own words: "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mark 14:25). The thing, then, that 116 Roman Catholicism we drink is "the fruit of the vine." Bread and wine constitute the communion, or Lord's Sup- per — ^just simply bread and the juice of the grape. But why did Christ say, "This is my body; this is my blood" .^^ I answer. He spoke by figure. The bread and the wine are symbols, or emblems, of the broken body and the shed blood of Christ. It is the height of folly to put any other construction upon Christ's words. He could not have meant his literal body, for the following reasons : 1. At the time when he spoke these words, he was alive and in the presence of the disciples. It is impossible that they could have believed they were eating the body of Christ when they saw that body before them. He held the broken loaf in his own hands. With their eyes they looked upon his fleshly body at the table with them. How could they have believed that they were drinking his blood, when, as they knew, it was still in his veins? Incredible! 2. How could they have been persuaded to drink the literal blood of their Lord or to eat human flesh — to swallow their Lord and Master down their throats ? Such teaching is ridiculous in the extreme. 3. It could not have been his body broken and Transuhstantiation 117 his shed blood that they partook of; for he was at that very time alive before them. His body had not yet been given, sacrificed, or broken, for them. This shows that it is impos- sible to take these words of our Savior literally. Catholics say that the bread and the wine con- tain the body, soul, blood, and divinity of Christ. How, I ask, could the loaf of bread in Jesus' hand have contained his blood and soul, when his blood was yet coursing through his veins and not one drop had been shed? 4. Their own sense of taste would have con- vinced them that it was not literal flesh that they were eating nor literal blood that they were drinking. Our Savior spoke by figures ; and such figures as are very common. The bread and the wine are symbols, or emblems, of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. How can it be other- wise? When Christ instituted this ordinance he held a loaf in his hand. He blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples. He said. This is my body, broken, or sacrificed, for you. At this very moment his real body — bones, sinews, blood, and soul — the Christ whole and entire, stood be- fore them. Their eyes beheld him. His real body was not yet broken. Not a drop of his blood was at that time shed. Holding the bread 118 Roman Catholicism in his hands, he said, This is my body. Of the cup he said, This is my blood which shall be shed for many. If, therefore, we are to under- stand the words of Christ literally, as Roman Catholics would have us, we must admit one of the grossest contradictions in the world. We must believe that Christ's body was both alive and dead at the same time. Is it possible that the disciples understood that they were not eat- ing bread, but really eating flesh, and really drinking blood — the flesh and blood of Christ's dead body — when as yet he was not crucified, and his living person was there with them, vis- ible to their natural eyes.^^ Incredible! Pre- posterous! If they did not literally eat the flesh, bones, and sinews, and swallow down the blood and soul of Christ, neither do we today. Mark well this fact, for it forever demolishes the superstitious and unreasonable Catholic doc- trine of transubstantiation. Wine, by way of figure, is called "the blood of the grape" (Gen. 49:11; Deut. 32:14). How fittingly, then, it represents the blood of Christ ! But some one will ask, "Is the sign of a thing ever called by the same name as the thing it signifies.?" Certainly. It is so in our common language. In my room is an enlarged picture of my father and mother, who are now Transubstantiation 119 dead. Pointing to the picture, I say to a friend, "This is my father and mother." Who would be so stupid as to believe the picture to be really my father and mother — their actual body, blood, and soul? Who would believe them to be literally or even spiritually.'* The picture is only a representation of them. I say of a map hanging on the wall, "This is the United States." Who would understand it to be the real country itself .^^ Nobody. It is only a representation of it. Just so, Jesus took a loaf of bread, broke it, and said, "This is my body." That bread was no more his spiritual or literal body than the portrait on the wall is the real persons themselves. The bread simply repre- sented his body. The very mode of expression Jesus used is the common language of Scripture. I will here cite a few examples of its use. "The seven beau- tiful kine, and the seven full ears, are seven years" (Gen. 41:26). While it is plainly said that seven kine and seven ears are seven years, it is clear that the meaning is that the kine and the ears represent years. Again, "The three branches are yet three days" (Gen. 40:12). "The three baskets are yet three days" (v. 18). The branches and the baskets represent days. "Thou therefore art the head of gold" (Dan. 120 Roman Catholicism 2: 38). That is, the head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar and the great kingdom of Baby- lon. "These four great beasts are four king- doms, which shall arise out of the earth" (Dan. 7: 17). Who believes that real beasts were once kings of the earth? Yet the language is as positive as Jesus' language in the institution of the communion. "These four great beasts are four kingdoms." The beasts represent king- doms. "The ten horns" "shall be ten kings" (Dan. 7: 24). "The rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10: 4). "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven candlesticks are the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). "The seven heads are seven mountains" (Rev. 17:9). "I am the vine, you the branches" (John 15:5). In all these the sign has the name of the thing signified. Parallel with all the above figures, are Christ's words when he instituted the Com- munion Supper. The bread, when broken, rep- resents the broken body of our Savior; the blood of grapes represents his shed blood. The whole is a remembrancer of his death. Again, the body of Christ is not now a nat- ural body, but a spiritual body. This spiritual, glorified body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Christ is now wholly an infinite being. His body can not be broken. There is Transuhstantiation 121 no more blood to shed. We can not with our literal mouths eat an infinite being. The Catho- lics would have us believe that Christ, who is an infinite being with a glorified body in heaven, has at the same time a physical being with nat- ural flesh, bones, sinews, and blood, with his soul, here on earth; and this latter being they declare is "Christ, whole and entire." The priest himself makes this earthly Christ, by the words of consecration, out of a piece of bread and a cup of grape- juice. After making what they are pleased to term "the very God him- self," and worshiping him, they put him in their mouths, chew him between their teeth, and swal- low him into their stomachs. In this we boldly charge them with a practise that is blasphemous. Peter Dens, who is a standard Catholic author and a teacher of theology, says, "A mouse or a dog, eating the sacramental species, does not eat them sacramentally ; yet this proves that the body of Christ does not cease to exist under the species as long as they exist.'' — Cate- chism of the Council of Trent, No. 50; p. 34-7. This virtually declares that a mouse or a dog eating the consecrated bread also eats the body, blood, bones, and sinews, soul and divinity of Christ, but not sacramentally as man eats it. This author further says that if "a sick person 122 Roman Cafholicism vomits the sacred host," "they are to be rev- erently collected, and afterward received." "But if nausea prevent that, then they are cautiously separated from the filth, and deposited in some sacred place, and afterwards buried in the grave- yard."— 7^^., No. 65; p. 373. Surely this is enough to show the blasphemous and sacrile- gious practises of this apostate church. The story is told of a certain Protestant lady who married a Catholic. The priest paid them frequent visits, endeavoring to persuade her to accept the Catholic doctrine and j oin the church of her husband. Among the religious topics that she frequently discussed with him was this doctrine of transubstantiation. At length the husband fell sick, and during his affliction the priest recommended the holy sacrament. He requested the wife to prepare bread and wine for the solemn occasion, which she did. On pre- senting them to the priest, she said: "These, sir, you wish me to understand, will be changed into the real body and blood of Christ after you have consecrated them.?" "Most certainly," he replied. "Then sir," she rejoined, "it will not be pos- sible after the consecration for them to do any harm to the worthy partaker." "Assuredly not," answered the priest. "They Mass as Observed hy Catholics 123 can not do harm to the worthy receivers, but must communicate great good." The ceremony was proceeded in; the bread and wine were consecrated, and the priest was about to take and eat the bread and then give the same to her husband, when the lady inter- rupted him, saying: "I mixed a little arsenic with the bread, but as it is now changed into the real body of Christ, it can not, of course, do you any harm." The priest's faith was not sufficiently firm, however, to enable him to eat it. Confused, ashamed, and irritated, he left the house, and never more ventured to enforce on that lady the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. MASS, AS OBSERVED IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH The Church of Rome holds that the sacrifice of mass is a propitiatory offering of Christ, the same as his offering upon the cross of Cal- vary; that in it they offer up Christ to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for both the living and the dead, and in as true a manner as he was offered on the cross at Jerusalem ; and that it is equally meritorious with his first sacrifice. Here are three canons of the Council of Trent: 124 Roman CatJiolicism Canon 1. If any one shall say, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the mass; or that what is to be offered is nothing else than giving Christ to us to eat; let him be accursed. 2. If any one shall say, that by these words, *'Do this for a commemoration of me," Christ did not ap- point his apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood; let him be accursed. 3. If any one shall say, that the mass is only a service of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare com- memoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, and not a propitiatory offering; or that it only benefits him who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfac- tions, and other necessities; let him be accursed. Catholics contend that Christ is offered daily in the mass sacrifice. This has no foundation whatever in Scripture, and is directly contrary to it. Nothing that Christ said in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper has any reference whatever to the sacrifice of mass. The same is true of what Paul says in 1 Corinth- ians 11. Not in a single text that has the least bearing on the subject is there a hint that Christ would offer up himself, or ever command- ed his church to offer him up to God the Father, in this ordinance. "Did our Savior, at his last supper, offer up himself, body, soul, and divinity, a true sacrifice to God, or did he not.'* If he did not, how shall we dare to offer him up in our observance of the rite.'' If he did, as Mass as Observed hy Catholics 125 the Roman Catholics say he did, to what pur- pose did he afterwards offer himself upon the cross?" In their pretended offering up of Christ in the sacrifice of mass, the priests of the Romish church squarely contradict the New Testament teaching. "For by on€ oblation [offering, A. v.] he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others ; For then he ought to have suf- fered often from the beginning of the world: but now once at the end of ages, he hath ap- peared for the destruction of sin, by the sacri- fice of himself. ... So Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9: 25-28). There was but one offering of Christ for remission. He was never to be offered as a propitiatory offering but once; yet in direct contradiction to this fact, the priests of Rome claim to offer him up a thousand times every day. It was not needful that he should "offer him- self often . . . for then he ought to have suf- fered often" (Heb. 9 : 25, 26). "Without shed- ding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9: 22). From this we learn that Christ can not 126 Roman Catholicism be offered without suffering. If the sacrifice be true, then Christ must often suffer; for if he should offer himself often, then must he have often suffered. If the Catholic mass is real, Romanists put Christ to death every day, and that in thousands of different places. Thus they cause him to pass through untold suffer- ings. This practise virtually makes them as guilty of crucifying the Lord of glory as were the Jews and Roman soldiers. Since the Romish claim is that in the mass a propitiatory offering and sacrifice of Christ is made, "for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfac- tions, and other necessities," and since Paul de- clares that "without shedding of blood there is no remission" of sins, it follows either that the sacrifice of the mass must be a bloody sacrifice, and so Christ's blood must be shed as often as he is offered in the mass; or else it is no pro- pitiatory offering, and grants no one remission of sins, the very thing for which they claim the sacrifice of mass is made. In one breath they deny a bloody sacrifice in the mass, and in the other they say that in every crumb of the bread, and in every drop of the wine, "there is contained the blood, as well as the body, soul, and divinity of Christ" ; and who- soever does not believe these two contradictory Mass as Ohserved hy Catholics 127 doctrines is cursed by the Council of Trent. The sacrifice of mass is utterly and forever overthrown by the positive words of Scripture : "By one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified"; and "where there is a re- mission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin" (Heb. 10: 18). The fact is, when he had by himself purged our sins, and this by "one offering," he ascended into heaven, where he is always living to make intercession for us." Thus he "is able also to save them forever that come to God by him." After we are saved through the one sacrifice Christ made on the cross, "there is no conscience of sin any longer." Our sins are remembered no more. Grace is given to live ever after above sin. For, says the apostle, "we know that whosoever is bom of God, sin- neth not" ( 1 John 5:18). "Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not" ( 1 John 3:6). Since the Romanists have never found this full salvation in Christ Jesus, they have invented the ridicu- lous sacrifice of the mass. The following extract from the Roman Mis- sal sets forth the shocking profanation and superstition of this practise. If, after consecration, a gnat, a spider, or any such thing, fall into the chalice, and if it produces nausea to the priest, let him draw it out and wash it with the wine; and when mass is concluded, let him burn it, 128 Boman Catholicism and let him. throw the ashes and the washings into a sacred place. But if there is no nausea, and he fears none, let him swallow it with the blood. If poisonous matter should fall into the cup, or anything that would cause a vomiting, let the con- secrated wine be put in another cup, and other wine with water be again placed to be consecrated; and when mass is finished, let the blood be poured on linen cloth or tow, and remain till dry, and then let the two be burned, and the ashes cast into a holy place. If any poisonous matter touches the consecrated host, then let the priest consecrate another and receive it in the proper manner, and let the poisoned one be pre- served in a box, in a separated place, until the species be corrupted, and then let the corrupted species be thrown into a sacred place. If in winter the blood be frozen in the cup, put warm clothes about the cup; if that will not do, let it be put into boiling water near the altar till it be melted, taking care it does not come into the cup. If any of the blood of Christ fall on the ground or table by negligence, it must be licked up with the tongue, the place must be thoroughly scraped, and the scrapings burned; but the ashes must be buried in holy ground. If the priest vomit the eucharist, and the species appear entire, they must be reverently swallowed un- less nausea prevent; and in that case the consecrated species must be cautiously separated from the vomit, and laid by in some sacred place until they be cor- rupted, and afterward they are to be thrown into a sacred place; but if the species do not appear, the vomit must be burned, and the ashes thrown into a sacred place. Idolatrous Worship 129 IDOLATROUS WORSHIP - We have already shown the absurdity of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the blas- phemous character of the sacrifice of mass. We now come to consider the idolatrous worship connected therewith. The Catholic authorities admit that "it is eating of the very God we wor- ship." The priest takes a part of a substance which the farmer grows in his field, lays it upon an altar, pronounces a few words of consecra- tion over it, and suddenly it turns into a god! There is no bread nor wine left on the table after the words of consecration. It is now Christ — "Christ entire," "the body, soul, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ." Next, the priest falls before it and worships it, then holds it up before his congregation, saying to them in Latin, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Then they all bow their heads in reverence and worship. After this the priest and people eat it — ^chew it be- tween their teeth and swallow it down into their stomachs. In all history, who ever heard of even the pagans making a god, then worshiping it, and afterwards eating it? But this is the Catholics' practise, and they can not deny it. The devotees of the Church of Rome worship the wafer in the sacrament with the same honor 130 Roman Catholicism with which they worship God. This is vir- tually worshiping a piece of bread. Papal Rome is but a continuation of pagan Rome, under a Christian gixrb. The papal beast of Revelation 13 is the offspring of the great red dragon — pagan Rome — of Revelation 12. After the Council of Trent plainly declared that after the consecration the bread and the wine in the sacrament are changed "into our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man," it de- cided : There is, therefore, no room to doubt but that the faithful of Christ should adore his most holy sacrament with the highest worship due to the true God, ac- cording to the constant usage of the Catholic Church. Nor is it the less to be thus adored, that it was in- stituted by Christ our Lord to be eaten. — Third Sess. XIII, c. 5, can. 6. If any one shall say that this holy sacrament should not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in proces- sion, nor held up publicly for the people to adore it . . . let him be accursed. — Id. From the above we see that Romanists wor- ship the round wafer not only at the time of receiving it, but also when it is carried about in the streets. At the sound of a bell all persons are admonished to worship the passing god. Those who refuse to do so, or dare to say the practise is wrong, are pronounced accursed by the great Roman Council of Trent. Thus under the threat of a curse, the Romanists are com- Idolatrous Worship 131 manded to offer supreme adoration to a piece of bread, which a mouse may run off with and eat, or, as the Roman Missal says, "The priest him- self may eat and vomit, and then eat again." This is rank idolatry, and really worse than can be found among the pagans. The primitive church had no such practise. It was not until 1215 A. D. that the Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocent III, made tran- substantiation an article of faith. In the year 1216 A. D. Pope Honorious ordered that the priest, at a certain part of the mass service, "should elevate the host, and cause the people to prostrate themselves in worshiping it." In thus adoring the consecrated bread with the worship that is due to God only, these people make them- selves idolators as much as the heathen. It is rank idolatry to worship that for God which is not God. Then all who worship the wafer are idolators. That which they worship we have clearly proved is not God, but a mere wafer — a piece of bread. The following from Delineation of Roman Catholicism, by Chas. Elliott, sets forth the idolatry in the worship of the host : All the marks that the Scriptures give us of an idol, and all the reproaches they cast upon it, do as well suit the popish god in the sacrament, and as heavily light upon it, as anything that was worshiped 132 Raman CatJiolicism by the heathen. It is the mark and reproach of a heathen idol that it was made by men. And is not the god in the mass as much the work of men's hands as any of the pagan idols were? Let none be offended when we say the Eomanists make their god, or make the body and blood of Christ, for it is their own word, and solemnly used by them. And one of the greatest reasons for which they deny the validity of Protestant ministers is, because in their ordination they do not pretend to confer a power of making the body of Christ. Moreover, the Scripture not only describes an idol, but also exposes it to laughter and contempt, by reck- oning up the many outrages and ill usages it is ob- noxious to, and from which it can not rescue itself. Now there is no abuse of this kind which they reckon up, but the god which the Eoman Catholics adore in the mass is as subject to as any pagan idol ever was. If Laban be laughed at for serving gods which were stolen away (Gen. 31:30), are they not as much to be laughed at whose god has been so often in danger of being stolen by thieves, that they have been forced to make a law for his safe custody? If men are re- proached for worshiping what at last may be cast to the moles and bats (Isa. 2:20), are not the Romanists equally censurable for worshiping that which may be- come the prey of rats and mice, etc.? If it was a sufficient proof that the Babylonian gods were idols because they were carried away captive, will it not be as good an argument to prove the host of the mass to be an idol? For they carry it about from place to place to be worshiped, and there is one day in the year set apart for that purpose, namely. Corpus Christi Day, And if we may believe history, this host has been likewise taken from the Christians and carried away captive by the Mohammedans. In the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah we have the Idolatrous Worship 133 following description of an idol: "The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms. . . . The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house. . . . He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh: . . . and the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshipeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith. Deliver me, for thou art my god."* The parallel between this and making the host > and its worship is very striking. The farmer soweth wheat, it grows, it ripens, is reaped, and is threshed; it is ground at the mill, it is sifted with a sieve; with a part thereof the fowls and cattle are fed; another part is taken and baked by the baker, yet it is no god; it is brought forward and laid on the altar, and yet it is no god; the priest han- dles and crosses it, and yet it is no god; he pronounces over it a few words, when instantly it is the supreme God. He falls down before it and prays to it, saying, * ' Thou art my God. ' ' He lifts it up to the people, and cries, "Eece Agnus Dei, qui tollit mundi peccata" — ''Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. ' ' The whole congregation fall down and worship it, crying, *'Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ' ' — ' ' My fault, my fault, my very great fault." How exact the parallel between popish and heathen idolatry! The idolatry of the Romish church is more ♦This text is from the Authorized Version instead of the Douay, because Mr. Elliott has so quoted it. There is no material difference between the two versions in their rendition of this text. 134 Roman Catliolicism flagrant than that of the heathen. The latter do not hold that the images before whom they fall and worship are the real gods, but only representations of the real deities they worship ; whereas the former believe that the wafer (bread) "is the very God himself," "contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the very Christ." And they worship it and adore it, believing it to be the Deity himself. They make a Savior out of bread, worship it, then eat it. Cicero, who was a pagan himself, expressly says "that among all the religions of his time, there was no man so foolish as to pretend to eat his god." — De Nat. Deorum, lib. ill. In every mass, as soon as the priest has con- secrated the bread and the wine, with bended knees he adores the sacrament. He worships that very thing which is before him upon the paten and in the chalice. With his head and soul bowing toward it, he prays to it as to Christ : "Lamb of God, who takest away the sin of the world, have mercy on us." — Roman Mis- sal, p. 219. These words he repeats three times. Thus he gives the supreme worship of both body and mind to it, as to God or Christ himself. When the wine is consecrated, the priest, in like manner, "falling on his knees, adores it, rises, shows it to the people, puts the cup in its place, Idolatrous Worship 135 covers it over, and again adores it." Thus they worship and offer prayer to what Paul terms "bread," and what Jesus himself said is "the fruit of the vine." The Roman "Litany of the Blessed Sacra- ment," which is found in most of their books of devotion, shows that they actually worship and offer prayer to the consecrated bread. O living bread, which came down from heaven, have mercy on us. O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us. O wine, which makest virgins to spring forth, have mercy on us. O bread which is fat, and yieldeth dainties to kings, have mercy on us. Continual feast, have mercy on us. Clean oblation, have mercy on us. Food of angels, have mercy on us. Hidden manna, have mercy on us. Supersubstantial bread, have mercy on us. Chalice of benediction, have mercy on us. Bread, by the omnipotence of the word, changed into flesh, have mercy on us. Etc. I again quote from the Council of Trent to emphasize this point. IF ANY ONE SHALL SAY THAT THE SACEA- MENT IS NOT TO BE WORSHIPED BY A PECUL- IAR FEAST, NOR TO BE SOLEMNLY CARRIED ABOUT IN PROCESSIONS, ACCORDING TO THE LAUDABLE AND UNIVERSAL MANNER AND CUSTOM OF THE HOLY CHURCH; NOR TO BE PUBLICLY PROPOSED TO THE PEOPLE, THAT IT MAY BE ADORED BY THEM; . . . LET HIM BE ACCURSED. 136 Roman CatJiottcism Thus the Roman Catholics address prayers and hymns to the sacrament as if it were the living God. This emblem, composed of bread and wine, they honor, pray to, and trust in. O my Catholic friends, who have been ignor- antly led into such idolatrous worship, for the sake of your soul's eternal welfare, flee idolatry by forever renouncing the apostate Church of Rome, and abide only in Christ, worshiping only the true and living God. Space will not permit a consideration of image-worship practised in the Romish church. This fact, and also the worship of saints, is well known to all. The creed of Pope Pius IV says : Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invocated, that they offer prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be venerated. The Council of Trent, in its twenty-fifth ses- sion, decreed: The saints, who reign together with Christ, offer their prayers to God for men: that it is a good and a useful thing suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance. To honor the saints who sleep in the Lord, to in- voke their intercession, and to venerate their sacred relics and ashes, . . . tends considerably to increase the glory of God.— Id., p. 329. It is an undeniable fact that these worshipers bow to the image of Mary, adore her, and offer prayers to her. I have before me a number of Peitance— Absolution — Auricular Confession 137 the forms of prayer used by the Catholics, in which they beseech this "holy mother of God" to deliver them, and to grant them help such as God alone can give. PENANCE— ABSOLUTION— AURICULAR CON- FESSION Space will not permit a thorough discussion of the doctrines and practises of the Church of Rome relative to penance, absolution, and auric- ular confession; but I will endeavor briefly to set them and their absurdities before the reader. The Roman church calls repentance "pen- ance." This they say is a sacrament. I quote from their standard of doctrine, the Council of Trent, fourteenth session: If any one says that the Catholic Church penance is not truly a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, to reconcile the faithful to God, as often as they sin after baptism; let him be accursed. — Can. 1. If these [baptized persons] afterwards defile them- selves by any transgression, it is not his will that they should be cleansed by a repetition of baptism, which is on no account lawful in the Catholic Church, but they should be placed as offenders before the tribunal of penance, that they may be absolved by the sentence of the priests, not once only, but as often as they flee thereto, confessing their sins. — Can. 2. Though the priest's absolution is the dispensation of a benefit which belongs to another, yet it is not to be considered as merely a ministry, whether to pub- 138 Roman Cafholicism lish the gospel or to declare the remission of sins, but as the nature of a judicial act, in which sentence is pronounced by him as judge; and therefore the penitent ought not to flatter himself on account of his faith, for faith without penance can not procure remission of sins. — Can. 5. Whosoever shall afSrm that the priest's sacramental absolution is not a judicial act, ... let him be accursed. — Can. 9. The Council further teaches, that even those priests who are living in mortal ain exercise the function ct forgiving sins, as the ministers of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit conferred on thera in ordinatioix- and that those who contend that wicked priests have not this power, hold very erroneous sentiments. — -Cari. 6 Whosoever shall affirm that priests living in mortal sin have not the power of binding and loosing, or that priests are not the only ministers of absolution, etc.; let him be accursed. — Can. 10. A wicked priest can validly absolve. — ^Peter Dens. Our sins are forgiven by the absolution of the priest. The voice of the priest, who is legitimately consti- tuted a minister for the remission of sins, is to be heard as that of Christ himself.^-Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 239. The absolution of the priest, which is expressed in words, seals the remission of sins, which it accomplishes in the soul. — Id., p. 240. Unlike the authority given to the priests of the old law, to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, the power which the priests of the new law are in- vested is not simply to doclare that sins are forcriven, but, as the ministers of God, feally to absoh e from sin.— Id., p. 242. There is no sin, however grievous, no crime, however enormous, or however frequently repeated, which pen- ance does not remit. — Id., p. 243. Penance — Ah solution^ Auricular Confession 139 Without the intervention of penance we can not obtain, or even hope for pardon. — Id., p. 244. The penitent must also submit himself to the judg- ment of the priest, who is the vicegerent of God. — Id., p. 245. The form of absolution used by the priest is : I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. — Peter Dens. I judicially bestow on thee the grace of the remis- sion of all thy sins, or grace of itself remissive of all' thy sins. — Id. Reader, observe that the priests of Rome claim the power to ^-judge^^ the souls of men, and by "a judicial act" absolve from all sin. The voice of the priest in this "is to be heard as that of Christ himself." Every priest "is the vicegerent of God," and "there is no sin, how- ever grievous, no crime, however enormous," but what he has power to forgive, or absolve from. Even priests guilty of "mortal sin" have this power. These claims the Romish church un- blushingly makes. What further proof is needed that she is the great Antichrist that Christ and the apostles foretold would come.^^ The Romish church thus fulfils to the very letter the pre- diction of Paul in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4 : "Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be re- vealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth, and 140 Roman Catholicism is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." Every priest of Rome, in his claim that there is "no sin, no crime, however enormous," but what he has power to absolve, exalts himself above all that is called God; for God himself declares there is one sin for which there is no forgiveness. In fact, every priest, in claiming power to ju- diciously absolve from guilt and judge the souls of men, "sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." The means of salvation as clearly set forth in the New Testament, is " penance toward god, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20: 21). "Repentance toward God, and faith to- ward our Lord Jesus Christ," A. V. None can forgive sins but God alone (Mark 2:7). "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and never forget all he hath done for thee. Who forgiveth all thine iniquities" (Psa. 102:2, 3—103:2, 3, A. V.). "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins" (Eph. 1:7). "I am, I am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43: 25). "To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness" (Dan. 9:8, 9). "Even as God hath forgiven you in Christ" (Eph. 4 : 32). Penance — Ah solution — Auricular Confession 141 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins" (1 John 1:9). These, with a multitude of other texts, clearly teach that to God alone belongs the power to absolve from guilt and sin. John 20 : 23 was never understood by the primitive ministry and church as the Romanists now interpret it. Christ made clear his mean- ing in the final commission which he gave to his ministry : "Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved : but he that believeth not shall be condemned." "That penance [repentance, A. V.] and remis- sion of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations" (Luke 24: 27). Thus on the day of Pentecost Peter preached, "Do penance [re- pent, A. v.], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38). "Be penitent [repent, A. V.], therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blot- ted out" (Acts 3:19). "By his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him" (Acts 10:43). Paul was sent to the Gentiles "to open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among the saints, by the faith 142 Roman Gatliolicism that is in me" (Acts 26: 18). "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheri- tance among them which are sanctified by faith which is in me," A. V. These t^xts clearly set forth the apostolic manner of remitting and re- taining sins. It was through the ministry of the Word. Thus "it pleased God, by the fool- ishness of our preaching, to save them that be- lieve" ( 1 Cor. 1 : 21) . The gospel message was : "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." None of the primitive ministers claimed judicial power to remit or to retain sins, but fulfilled this statement of Jesus only de- claratively or ministerially. When we study the nature of sin, the ab- surdity of the Romish claim appears all the clearer. Sin is the transgression of God's law, an offense against Jehovah himself. Being the transgression of an infinite and holy law, com- mitted against an infinite and holy God, an in- finite debt to divine justice is contracted. It is the case of an offending man against an offended God. How can a finite creature, who knows not the thoughts and hearts of his fellow men, and who himself is often "guilty of mortal sin," as- sume the responsible position of absolving the Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 143 guilty from their sins, which God alone can do? There were no confessionals in the primitive church. There is no record in the New Testa- ment of any of the ministers claiming to exercise the judicial power of the Romish priesthood. They pointed men to Christ. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive" (Isa. 55:7). As to the confessional, the Catholics teach that we should not confess our sins direct to God, but privately to a priest, and this they are pleased to call "auricular confession." The Council of Lateran decrees: That every man and woman, after they come to years of discretion, should privately confess their sins to their own priest, at least once a year, and endeavor faithfully to perform the penance enjoined on them; and after this they should come to the sacrament at least at Easter, unless the priest, for some reasonable cause, judges it fit for them to abstain for that time. And whoever does not perform this is to be excom- municated out of the church, and if he die, he is not to be allowed Christian burial. The Council of Trent decrees, Sess. xiv: Canon 6. Whoever shall deny that sacramental con- fession was instituted by divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation; or shall aflBirm that the prac- 144 Roman CatJiolicism tise of secretly confessing to the priest alone, as it has been ever observed hy the Catholic Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and conmianded of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be ac- cursed. Canon 7. Whoever shall affirm that, in order to obtain forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of pen- ance, it is not necessary by divine .command to con- fess all and every mortal sin which occurs to the mem- ory after due and diligent premeditation — including secret offenses, and those which have been committed against the two last precepts of the decalogue, and those circumstances which change the species of sin; but that such confession is only useful for the in- struction and consolation of the penitent, arid was formerly observed merely as a canonical satisfaction imposed upon him; or shall af&rm that those who labor to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to be pardoned by the divine mercy; or finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins; let him be accursed. Canon 8. Whoever shall affirm that the confession of every sin, according to the custom of the church, is impossible, and merely a human tradition, which the pious should reject; or that all Christians, of both sexes, are not bound to observe the same once a year, according to the constitution of the great Council* of Lateran; and therefore that the faithful in Christ are to be persuaded not to confess in Lent; let him be accursed. From the Catechism of the Council of Trent we take the following extracts: Mortal sins, as we have already said, although buried in the darkest secrecy, and also sins of desire only, such as are forbidden by the ninth and tenth commandments, are all and each of them to be made matter of confession. — P. 258. Paiance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 145 With the bare emimeration of our mortal sins we should not be satisfied; that enumeration we should accompany with the relation of such circumstances as considerably aggravate or extenuate their malice. — P. 259. After censuring those who justify or exten- uate their sins, the Catechism declares: Still more pernicious is the conduct of those who, yielding to a foolish bashfulness, can not induce themselves to confess their sins. Such persons are to be encouraged by exhortation, and to be reminded that there is no reason whatever why they should yield to such false delicacy; that to no one can it appear sur- prizing if persons fall into sin, the common malady of the human race, and the natural appendage of human misery .~P. 264. The following is the general form of confes- sion : I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary, ever a virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to thee, father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my most grevious fault: therefore I be- seech the blessed Mary, ever a virgin, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and thee, father, to pray to the Lord our God for me. To enlightened minds, the above quotations are sufficient, without any comment, to show the blasphemous and idolatrous observance of Ro- man confession. They usually resort to Jas. 5 : 16, as an excuse for the practise. "Confess therefore your sins one to another." "Confess 146 Roman Catholicism your faults one to another," A. V. But this passage says nothing about a confessional in which penitents are to enter, whispering their sins, even secret sins, into the ears of wicked priests who themselves are guilty of mortal sin. There is as much foundation in the text for the priest to confess his sins to the people as the people to the priest. Again, there is not a hint in the text about any absolution being granted by a priest. Whoever read in the New Testament where Peter, Paul, or any of the other apostles set up a confessional of any kind, as installed in the Roman church? God alone is the one to whom confession is to be made. "I have acknowledged my sin to thee, and my injustice I have not con- cealed. I said I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord: and thou hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin" (Psa. 31: 5 — 32: 5, A. v.). "Have mercy upon me, O God, ac- cording to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity. Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. . . . To thee only have I sinned" (Psa. 50:1-6—51:1-6, A. v.). The cry of the publican was, "O God, be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18: 13). I will conclude this chapter with the following Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 147 quotation from Elliott on Romanist, pp. 318, 319: The instructions on this point given to Eoman Catholic priests in some of their seminaries train them to falsehood; yea, more, their theology, as a sys- tem, insists upon perjury, and demands it of their con- fessors. This is a heavy charge, and the proof ought to be called for and produced. Here is the proof: Peter Dens, in his Theology, which is the class-book in the Maynooth College, in Ireland, and is generally used in most Eoman Catholic theological schools, and is approved of by the dignitaries of the Church of Kome, teaches as follows what the duty of confessors is in reference to what is communicated to them in con- fession: ''Can a case be given in which it is lawful to break the secrecy of confession? Ans. None can be given; although the life or salvation of a man, or the destruc- tion of the commonwealth, would depend thereon. For the pope himself can not dispense with it; because the secrecy of the seal of confession is more binding than the obligation of an oath, a vow, a natural secret, etc.; and it depends on the positive will of God. "What then ought a confessor to answer when interrogated respecting any truth which he knows only by sacramental confession? Ans. He ought to answer that he does not know it; and, if necessary, to con- firm that by an oath. ''Obj. It is not lawful to lie in any case; but the confessor lies, because he knows the truth; there- fore, etc. Ans. The minor proposition is denied: because such a confessor is interrogated as a man, and answers as man; but he does not know this truth as man, though he knows it as Gtod; as St. Thoman Aquinas says, q. ii, art. 1, ad. 3: and this sense properly exists naturally in the very answer; for 148 Roman Catholicism when he is interrogated or answers in other cases than confession, he is considered as a man. ' ' But what if the confessor is directly asked whether he knows that by sacramental confession? Ans. In this case he ought to answer nothing: so says Steyart with Sylvius. But such an interrogation is to be re- jected as impious: or the confessor can say absolutely, not relatively, to the inquiry, (Ego nihil scio,) I know nothing; because the word (Ego) I^ refers to human knowledge. In like manner, if a confessor should be cited before a court for trial, that he might give a reason for the denial, he ought to contend that in this matter HE KNOWS NO SUPEEIOE BUT GOD." From the foregoing, it follows that the Church of Rome teaches and practises that ( 1 ) what a priest knows in confession, he knows it not as man, but as God; (2) hence, if a priest hears a thing in confession, and if, being asked and sworn, he shall say he never heard such a thing, he neither lies nor is perjured; (3) it is not lawful to reveal anything that is told only in confession, though it be to avoid the greatest evil, such as the death of a man, his damnation, the destruction of the commonwealth, etc. Hence we infer, that should the life of the president of the United States be in danger, or should states be in danger of destruction, a priest must not reveal a secret obtained through confession, should the discovery save the life of the chief magistrate, or preserve the whole union from ruin. Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 149 Indeed, it would be difficult to find, in so many words, such a total disregard to truth, and such blasphemous assumptions, as are contained in this quotation from Dens. Here blasphemy is unblushingly taught; for the priest here affects to act as God, thereby making himself equal with God, and manifesting the marked char- acter of antichrist, who "sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." Here, too, a known and deliberate lie, according to this veracious Roman Catholic writer, may be told, and told by a preacher of religion, con- nected, too, with administering a sacrament, as they call it. To this is to be added perjury, in order to make the deliberate lie pass for truth. Besides, the life of a man, or even his salvation, or the destruction, "interitus reipub- licae," the overthrow of our republican govern- ment (to use the very words of Dens), are con- sidered small matters, if necessary to keep up the authority of the Roman Catholic priesthood ! It is useless to inquire what kind of citizens Roman Catholic priests will make, when they are taught such horrible principles. 150 Roman CatJiolicism THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY The following presents the teaching of the Church of Rome concerning purgatory: I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.— Creed of Pope Pius IV. It is a place in which the souls of the pious dead, obnoxious to temporal punishment, make satisfaction. — Dens' Theology, No. 25. Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit from the sacred writings and the ancient tradi- tions of the fathers, hath taught in holy councils, and lastly in this (Ecumenical council, that there is a purga- tory; and that the souls detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the mass; this holy council com- mands all bishops diligently to endeavor that the whole- some doctrine concerning purgatory, ... be be- lieved, held, taught, and everywhere preached by Christ's faithful. — Council of Trent, 25th session. If any one shall say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted to the penitent sinner, and the penalty of eternal punishment destroyed, that no penalty of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world, or in the fu- ture in purgatory, before the access to the kingdom of heaven can lie open; let him be anathema. — Council of Trent, 6th session, Can. 30. In the fire of purgatory the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country. — Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 63. Q. Whither go such as die in mortal sin? A. To hell, to all eternity. Q. Whither go such as die in venial sin, or not having fully satisfied for the pun- ishment due to their mortal sins? A. To purgatory, till Penance — Absolution — Auricular Confession 151 they have made full satisfaction for them, then to heaven. — Douay Catechism. As to the location of this fictitious place, I quote from the orthodox Roman Catholic Dens : Q. Where is purgatory? A. The ordinary place of purgatory, which properly and commonly is understood by that name, is under the earth, and adjoining to hell.— Dens, Purgatory, No. 27, Vol. VII, p. 400. From the above-cited quotations it will be seen that the Church of Rome positively teaches that "under the earth, and adjoining to hell," is a place which they are pleased to call purga- tory. Into this place the dead in Christ, "just men," whose "mortal sins were already par- doned," and whose "venial sins" were atoned for in the sacrifice of mass, must go at death and suffer "a temporary punishment" ; and this is a place of "fire," in which "fire of purgatory, the souls of just men are cleansed," "in order to be admitted into the eternal country." The misery and suffering of these righteous souls in pur- gatory can be mitigated "by the suffrages of the faithful." This they define as the procuring of masses to be said for the dead, procuring in- dulgences, votes of the faithful, variously given by prayers, offerings, purchasing masses, etc. These are all paid for by the living friends of the deceased; which is neither more nor less than paying money to the priests. Thus this 152 Roman Catholicism fabulous Romish story, which originated about the end of the sixth century under Pope Greg- ory the Great, is an amazing source of profit financially to the Roman clergy. In the fear of God we affirm that this giving of money to the priests for the souls of the righteous who are supposed to be tormented in the fires of purgatory is a clear fulfilment of Peter's pre- diction that false prophets would bring in "sects of perdition" and "through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of youC^ "and their perdition slumbereth not" (2 Pet. 2: 1-3). Rome is none other than the great Babylon of Revelation, which is said to make "merchandise" of the "souls of men" (Rev- elation 18). This is another evidence that papal Rome is but a continuation of pagan Rome clothed in a Christian garb. Before Gregory the Great, the doctrine of purgatory was taught by no one but by heathen poets and philosophers. Car- dinal Bellarmine admits this. — Bellarmine: De Purg, lib. 1, c. 11. Thus it will be seen that this unreasonable doctrine originated with the heathen and was copied by the Roman bishops. It truly can be said of it that it is heathenish. It is squarely contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. Saith the Lord, "I will forgive The Doctrine of Purgatory 153 their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:34). "I am, I am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember thy sins" (Isa. 43:25). "Their sins I will remember no more" (Heb. 8: 12). "By his own bloody entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption" (Jleb. 9:12). "Now once at the end of ages hath he appeared, for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26). "For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10: 14.). "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). He hath "washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). "He became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9). But why mul- tiply texts .^ There is no other remedy for sin and its punishment but the blood of Jesus. There is no need of a purgatory. The blood now "cleanseth from all sin." It purifies the heart. "Blessed are the clean of heart : for they shall see God." When we are purged from all our sins in the blood of Jesus and cleansed from all sin's defiling, we are said to be "perfected FOREVER," sanctified, the possessors of "eter- nal SALVATION." Our past sins will be re- membered no more. This leaves no place for 154 Roman Catholicism purgatory. The righteous are said to possess "everlasting life" now, and how can this har- monize with a period of suffering in the fires of purgatory? Also, those who are saved are said to be possessed with "everlasting joy" now, and they are commanded to "rejoice evermore." How can this harmonize with a period of tor- ment awaiting us in purgatory.'' "Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God" ( Rom. 5 : 1 ) . "There- fore being justified by faith, we have peace with God," A. V. This is a peace which Jesus said would abide. Such a state of peace with God can not agree with purgatory. "There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). And as far as the future is concerned, such "cometh not into judgment" (John 5: 24). If there is a purgatory of fire and torment awaiting "just men" after death, surely Simeon had a surprize awaiting him on the other side; for he said, "Now thou dost dismiss thy serv- ant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace" (Luke 2:29). Paul said: "I am straitened between two : having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better" (Phil. 1:23); and again, "To die is gain." If he woke up in the next world tormented "in The Doctrine of Purgatory 155 the fire of purgatory," to be "cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into the eternal country," surely his surprize must have been unbounded. There is no record of any one's offering mass for the dead in those days, nor of the primitive saints' paying money to the priest for Paul's deliverance, therefore, according to Romish teaching, the Apostle had to remain in the fire until he himself "had paid the uttermost farthing." The unreasonableness of such a doctrine appears on the very face of it. Everywhere the Scriptures teach that in time and life man is on probation, . with the power to chose eternal life or eternal death. Provision has been made through the atonement of Christ to fully save every man from all sin and to preserve blameless every believer "unto His heavenly kingdom." The entire human family is now divided into two classes — the righteous, and the wicked. Only two destinies await these classes after death, and the same will be true beyond the great judgment-day. When men pass through the portals of death, they enter into eternity. In that future state we read of but two places or states. The just at death are carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom — the paradise of God (see Luke 16 ; 23 : 43) — 156 Roman CatJiolicism where, immediately after death, they are "com- forted" (Luke 16: 25). Jesus knew nothing of purgatory when he said to the dying thief, "To- day thou shalt be with me in paradise." "Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord. From hence- forth, now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors" (Rev. 14: 13). "There the wicked cease from tumult, and there the wearied in strength are at rest" (Job 3: 17). How dif- ferent the Scriptures sound beside the Romish teaching of a purgatory of fire and torment for just men after death! Paul positively teaches that when we are absent from the body, we are present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). Thousands of departing souls have testified that they heard the angels singing and were go- ing to a place of rest and happiness. Is it pos- sible that all these were mistaken, and that the Creator put it into the hearts of his children, in the most solemn hour of their existence, to tes- tify to a falsehood? Would men who would dis- dain a lie, be made to speak an unconscious one in the hour of death? Was Stephen mistaken when he looked up "stedfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"? and a little later when he ad- dressed his Savior thus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"? Was the apostle Paul mistaken The Gospel to tJie Dead 157 when he said, "We know" that when this earthly house, this mortal body, dissolves in death, we shall "be with Christ" — ^be absent from the body, and "present with the lord"? THE GOSPEL TO THE DEAD "For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged in- deed according to men, in the flesh ; but may live according to God, in the Spirit" (1 Pet. 4:6). "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might oifer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water" (1 Pet. 3: 18-20). These two texts are the main ones relied upon for the erroneous doctrines of purgatory, say- ing masses for the dead, and praying for the dead. But I am sure that after a careful read- ing, it must take a great stretch of the imagina- tion to read into these passages such doctrines 158 Bo7nan Catholicism as mass and purgatory. Nothing of the kind is even hinted. As to the first of these texts, I will submit the following renderings : "For this indeed was the eifect of the preaching of the gospel to the dead, that some will be punished, as carnal men; but others lead a spiritual life unto God." — Wakefield. "For this cause was the gospel preached to them that were dead ; that they who live according to men in the flesh, may be con- demned; but that they who live according to God in the Spirit, may live." — Knatchhull. By "the dead" Peter evidently refers to those who had lived and died under the old dispensa- tion, in counter-distinction to those who are now living under the gospel. "The most intelligible meaning (of 1 Pet. 3:18, 19; 4:6) suggested by the context is, that Christ by his spirit preached to those who, in the time of Noe, while the ark was preparing were disobedient, and whose spirits are now in prison abiding the gen- eral judgment." In the text under considera- tion, however, special reference is made to the antediluvian world. When did these people have the gospel preached to them? In Heb. 4:2 it is plainly taught that the gospel was preached to those under the Old Testament as well as to us under the New. To . TJie Gospel to the Bead 159 them, of course, it was preached in promise and prophecy, and demonstrated in type and shad- ow; but it was preached to them while they were living here upon the earth. The effect of the gospel was, in essence, the same to those under the Old Testament as to us under the New. To many of them the word preached "did not profit them, not being mixed with faith of those things they heard." Such "will be pun- ished as carnal men," for they "who lived ac- cording to men in the flesh" will be "judged," or "condemned." But those who, like Abraham, believed God, and in type and shadow "drank of that spiritual rock that followed them" (Christ), shall "live according to God, in the spirit." In other words, those who led "a spiritual life unto God" here below, will enjoy the bliss of eternal life beyond. The result of this preach- ing was that "eight souls were saved," while the remainder "perished." Christ, "by the Spirit," preached to those people through human instrumentality. Hence Noah is called by this same apostle "the preacher of justice" (2 Pet. 2:5). From Jude 14, 16 it is evident that Enoch also preached and warned the ungodly at that time. Methuselah was three hundred and sixty-nine years old when Noah was born (see Gen. 5 : 25, 28). Noah 160 Romcm Catholicism was "six hundred years old, when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth" (Gen. 7:6). Methuselah lived to be nine hundred and sixty- nine years old (Gen. 5:27), and then died a natural death; but according to these dates, he lived until the year of the flood. Being the son of Enoch, who walked with God, he is classed with the "sons of God." We would naturally infer that Methuselah also warned the dis- obedient people of his time. Peter informs us in this same epistle that the Spirit that was in those ancient men of God was the Spirit of Christ (1 Pet. 1: 11). Thus by the Spirit Christ strove with that ancient "world of the ungodly," warned them by Noah and others, and "waited" long for their repentance. It may be objected that Christ preached to "spirits." We read that the Lord is the "God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22), and that he is "the Father of spirits" (Heb. 12: 9), and in these texts reference is made to men who are yet in the flesh. The soul, or spirit, of man is the volitional part of his being. It is that part which sins and must be saved through the blood of Christ. This objection will be obviated, however, if we take into consideration the fact brought out by the context, that Christ Church of Rome in DanieVs Prophecy 161 preached by his Spirit to those who are now spirits in prison. There is no indication in the Scripture under consideration that the antediluvians nor any one else had another chance of salvation after death. The only preaching of Christ to them with the object of their salvation was that which was offered them "in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building." Even some Roman Catholic writers are forced to admit that 1 Pet. 3 : 18-20 is no good founda- tion for purgatory or masses for the dead. But we may doubt whether this be the meaning of •St. Peter in this place. — Calmet. He who, in our times, coming in the flesh, preached the way of life to the world, even he himself came before the flood, and preached to them who then were unbelievers, and lived carnally. For even he, by his Holy Spirit, was in Noah, and in the rest of the holy men which were at that time, and by their good con- versation preached to the wicked men of that age, that they might be converted to better manners. — Bede. THE CHURCH OF ROME DESCRIBED IN DANIEL'S PROPHECY In Dan. 7 : 2-8 four great universal kingdoms, which ruled in succession in ancient times, are brought to view under the symbols of four beasts. An angel gave Daniel the following interpretation of the vision : "These four great 162 Boman Catholicism beasts are four kingdoms, which shall arise out of the earth" (v. 17). These were the Baby- lonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman kingdoms. The last one concerns us most. In the vision it was seen as "a fourth beast, ter- rible and wonderful, and exceeding strong, it had great iron teeth, eating and breaking in pieces, and treading down the rest with its feet : and it was unlike the other beasts which I had seen before it, and had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them: and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of man, were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things" (vv. 7, 8) . "I beheld, and lo, that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them" (v. 21). This the angel interpreted: "And the ten horns of the same kingdom, shall be ten kings: and another shall rise up after them, and he shall be mightier than the former, and he shall bring down three kings. And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and the half a time. And judgment shall Church of Borne in DanieVs Prophecy 163 sit, that his power may be taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even to the end" (vv. 24-26). This fourth kingdom was Rome. She de- voured, broke in pieces, and crushed the na- tions with her iron rule. "Horn" denotes power. The ten horns are the ten kingdoms which grew out of the Roman Empire. Next came up a "little horn." This was popery, which grew out of heathen Rome. Three of the ten — the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Lombards — were plucked up by this one. His "mouth speaking great things," "great words against the High One," was fulfilled in the great assumptions of the pope. These have all been considered in previous chapters. "That horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them"; and it was to "crush the saints of the Most High." This was fulfilled in the long period of martyrdom, when millions were slaughtered because they would not accept the doctrines of the papacy. This horn (power) grew out of paganism. Though clothed in a Christian garb, it was the same persecuting power. Where heathen Rome slaughtered her thousands. Chris- tian {?) Rome slaughtered her millions. The Romanists try to shift this responsibility to the temporal kings, but it must be remembered that 164 Bomcm Catholicism during the dark ages of martyrdom, these kings were but the obedient servants of the pope. Changing times had a fulfilment under the pa- pacy. When the pope takes ordinary time and makes holy time of it, he is assuming a right which belongs to God alone. In the preceding chapters it is abundantly shown that the Romish church has made null and void many of the fundamental truths of the Bible, and substi- tuted in their stead human tradition. This is changing laws. The reign of this power is limited to "a time and times and the half a time." This is the exact time the woman (church) was to continue in the desert (Rev. 12: 14). The reign of popery, then, covers the desert state of the church. It is further said that "his power may be taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even to the end." This is in perfect accord with Paul's testimony in 2 Thessalonians 2, that the man of sin was to be killed with the spirit of the Lord's mouth, and be destroyed with the brightness of his coming. This consuming be- gan with the reformation, is continued in the evening light of this dispensation, and will reach its grand climax at the second advent of Christ. The present destruction is effected by the executing of the flaming judgments of The Papacy in Revelation 165 truth against this false worship and false sys- tem of religion. From the Reformation until now, the temporal power of the papacy has been on a rapid decline. The very governments that once upheld her have turned Protestant. Rome never again will exercise universal dominion as she once did. This consuming of her power and influence is to continue "to the end." Her final doom is foretold by the prophet in these words : "I saw that the beast was slain, and the body thereof was destroyed, and given to the fire to be burnt." THE PAPACY PORTRAYED IN THE REVELATION In Revelation 12 we have the symbol of "a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns: and on his heads seven diadems" (v. 3). This dragon represents Rome under the pagan religion. Rome was truly a dragon power. Its color — red — denotes its bloodthirstiness. Its seven heads represent the seven supreme forms of government that ruled successively in the empire — the regal power, the dictatorship, the decemvirate, the consular, the triumvirate, the imperial, and the patriciate. The ten horns of the dragon represent the ten kingdoms which grew out of the Roman empire — the Huns, the 166 Roman Catholicism Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Franks, the Van- dals, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the Heruli, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Lombards. The casting down of the stars doubtless refers to the thou- sands of bright luminaries who were martyred during the reign of paganism. , Just as fast as men accepted the Christian faith the pagans were ready to devour them. Bloody were the days of the church under pagan Rome, In this same chapter the church is seen in her primitive glory under the symbol of "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (v. 1). Later this woman "fled into the wilder- ness," where she remained in a state of ob- scurity for "a thousand two hundred sixty days" ; "for a time and times, and half a time" (w. 6, 14). This covers a period of the great apostasy. After the dragon — pagan Rome — was con- quered by Christianity, it is said he was "angry against the woman [church] : and went to make war with the rest of her seed" (v. 17). This he could not do himself, for his power was broken. He accomplished his purpose, however, through his offspring and successor, "the beast." Through this beast, war was made against the The Pupacy in Revelation 167 remnant of the seed of the woman — the few who stood true to God during the Dark Ages. "And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. And the beast, which I saw, was like to a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power" (Rev. 13: 1, 2). It will be seen that the beast resembles his parent, the dragon. The dragon had seven heads, so had the beast. The dragon had ten horns, so had the beast. But there was a difference. The dragon had his crowns upon his heads, while the beast had his crowns upon his horns. This beast is popery. Popery is a child of pagan Rome, the dragon. During the reign of the empire the seven heads, or forms of government, were the ruling powers ; hence the crowns were upon his heads: but when popery arose, the ten kingdoms were the ruling power — the crowns were upon the horns. This beast is identical with that of Rev. 17:2 and the "little horn" of Daniel 7. A leopard is a spotted animal, a type of sin. Since this beast was "like a leopard," it rep- resents a very sinful power; and such is the papacy. The resemblance of its feet to the 168 Roman CatJiolicism feet of a bear signifies its crushing power. Its "mouth as the mouth of a lion" symbolizes the devouring nature of the papacy. But where did popery get her power .f^ "And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power." The ten kingdoms of Rome gave their strength and power to the beast (Rev. 17:13). Instead of popery receiving her power from above, she re- ceived it from paganism. The seat of pagan government — Rome — became the seat of papal rule. "And he took me away in spirit into the des- ert. And I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet- colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, hav- ing seven heads and ten horns" (v. 3). The solution of this will be given in our exegesis of Rev. 17: 10, 11. The Roman empire had seven heads, or forms of government. The sixth of these was the imperial. This was the form of government under the heathen Caesars. The time came when the hordes of savages from the North swept over the empire and overthrew the im- perial government (A. D. 476). It was wounded to death. Later the patriciate ruled the empire for a short time, after which, under Charle- magne, the imperial power revived as the Holy Roman Empire, controlled by popery. The wound was healed. Imperial Rome was the same The Papacy in Revelation 169 under priestcraft and popery that it was under the Cassars. Under the Cassars it was clothed in heathen garb; under priestcraft, in Christian garb. Thus the beast (popery) constituted the eighth head of Rome and yet was one of the seven. "All the earth was in admiration after the beast." Popery swayed universal dominion. "And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him.?" (Rev. 13: 4). This was fulfilled by the continuance of the pagan worship in the papal age. The high priest of the pagan Romans was called their pontiff. It was customary among them to deify their great men after their death and tomakeimagesof them and worship them. So also was it customary among the papists to make saints of their great men after their death by canonizing them. Papists pray to their saints, make images of them, and bow to them as the pagans did to their gods. Papists sprinkle their holy water as the pagans sprinkled their holy water. Papists advocate celibacy as did the pagans. In many other ways Roman Catholics have practised heathen worship. Thus they have caused the people to worship the dragon. "And there was given to him a mouth speak- 170 Roman Catholicism ing great things, and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do two and forty months. And he opened his mouth unto blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" (vv. 5, 6). This is fulfilled in popery by the blasphemous claims of the pope, who claims various prerogatives of God. These we have already considered. "And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all that dwelt upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which,was slain from the beginning of the world" (Rev. 13:7, 8). This was fulfilled in the great persecutions of the Christians under the reign of popery. Papal Rome glutted herself on the blood that heathen Rome only tasted. It is hardly necessary to refer to the bloody reign of the Dark Ages, for nearly all are well acquainted with the facts. I would simply refer the reader to such histories as Fox's Book of Martyrs, Christian Heroes and Martyrs, Martyr's Mirror, etc. All peo- ple worshiped popery except those whose names were in the book of life. These latter were the ones who suffered martyrdom at her cruel hands. TJie Papacy in Revelation 171 In Rev. 13: 10 we read: "He that shall lead into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that shall kill by the sword, must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." Ah! the patience and faith of the saints during that long, bloody night of papal darkness, was the assurance that the very beast- power which was leading them into captivity and killing them with the sword would sometime it- self go into captivity and suffer death from the sword. Thank God, their prayers were an- swered and their hopes realized. In the six- teenth century, God began to raise up reform- ers, such as Zwingli, Melanchthon, and Luther, who hurled the awful thunderbolts of heaven against the beast-power of popery. Truth, so long crushed, began to arise and triumph in the earth. The Reformation spread rapidly in every direction: watch-fires were kindled throughout all Germany and almost all Europe, and thou- sands threw off the galling yoke of popery and came out into clearer light. God's kingdom, which was to conquer every opposing power, conquered popery. The Reformation spread so rapidly and its power became so great that it cast its influence upon the rulers and kings of nations, who turned Protestant. The very rulers and kings that had 172 Roman CatJiolicism so long upheld Catholicism now turned against her and gave their support to Protestantism. The sword was turned against the beast. There were thirty years of bloody war in Germany. The universal supremacy of the papal power was broken. That beast which had ruled the earth for 1260 long years was left bleeding and wounded, and it has been growing weaker ever since. It has now been entirely sheared of its temporal power. Thus the prayers of those millions who were slain during its long reign were answered; and the words of God in Rev. 17:16 were fulfilled, where he says that the very kings and rulers who supported the great harlot "shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire." BABYLON THE GREAT As we have seen, the true primitive Church of God is brought to view in Revelation 12 under the symbol of a pure woman. After this the woman fled into the wilderness, or desert. Next, John was carried away in spirit "into the desert" (Rev. 17:3). What did he now see.? "And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, Babylon the Great 173 saying : Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the wine of her whoredom. And he took me away in spirit into the desert. And I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abominations and filthi- ness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications and the abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great ad- miration" (Rev. 17:1-6). Oh, how changed! What a contrast! In- stead of a pure woman, that chaste virgin, he now beholds a woman "with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication ; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the wine of her whoredom." She holds a cup full of the "filthiness of her fornication." 174 Roman Catholicism This woman is "drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." No wonder John wondered with great admiration ! Before the apostasy she stood upon the moon — the Word of God (12: 1) ; now she sits "upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns." Ah, beloved reader, this woman rep- resents the apostate church. She is the Catholic church. The beast that carried her is imperial Rome under the popes and bishops. This is made clear by the angel's interpretation of this marvelous vision. "And the angel said to me: Why dost thou wonder.'^ I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast which carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall come up out of the bottomless pit, and go into destruction: and the inhabitants on the earth (whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world) shall wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not. And here is the understanding that hath wis- dom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and there are seven kings: Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he Babylon the Great 175 must remain a short time. And the beast which was, and is not : the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction. And the ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but shall receive power as kings one hour after the beast. These have one design: and their strength and power they shall deliver to the beast. These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful. And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall bum her with fire. For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him; that they give their king- dom to the beast, till the words of God be ful- filled. And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:7-18). Here is a full explanation of the mystery. "The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth." This no doubt refers to the city of Rome, built upon seven hiUs, or 176 Roman Cafholicism mountains. Rome was the seat of both the pagan and the papel governments, and on her sat this woman and ruled, or reigned, over the kings of the earth. Thus she sat on seven mountains. But the seven heads have another signification. "And they are seven kings." These refer to the seven supreme forms of government which the Roman empire had: (1) the regal, (2) the dictatorial, (3) the decem- viral, (4) the consular, (5) the triumviral, (6) the imperial, and (7) the patrician. These were the ruling powers of the empire. The angel thus informed John: "Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come : and when he is come, he must remain a short time." That is, at the time John received this vision, the first five had already fallen. "One is." The form of government ruling the empire in John's time was the imperial, the sixth head of Rome. The rulers were the heathen Caesars. The other "not yet come" was the patrician, which had not yet developed at John's time. It was to continue but "a short time." Adam Clark says that the time during which the patriciate ruled the em- pire was limited to forty-five years. Some authorities say fifty-one years ; others twenty- six. This was a short period compared with the Babylon the Great 177 duration of several of the preceding forms of government. Next the angel interprets the beast upon which the woman sat: "The beast, which thou sawest, was, and is not. . . . And the beast which was, and is not: the same also is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into de- struction." This beast upon which the woman sat is the eighth head of Rome, and yet it was one of the seven. This beast was popery, which was the eighth and last head of Rome. It is the same secular beast as seen in Rev. 13: 1-11. "But," says one, "how was it one of the original seven.?" Let us see. The sixth head of the empire was the imperial under the heathen Caesars. This imperial power was the persecut- ing power of Rome against the early Chris- tians. Imperial Rome ruled the world. Thus "it was." But the time came when the hordes of savages from the North swept the empire and wounded the imperial head to death. The im- perial government was overthrown, therefore "it was not." Later, as we have shown, the patriciate ruled the empire for a short time, being succeeded by New Rome, the imperial power revived under a cloak of Christianity. The same power that ruled under the Caesars in heathen garb, though wounded to death for a 178 Eomam Catholicism time, revided and ruled under the priests and popes in Christian garb. But it was the same persecuting power. An apostate church, whose history can be clearly traced from about A. D. 270, grew up by degrees, and this apostate institution is what the woman, the great whore, represented. When the old persecuting imperial power revived, it gave its strength to this apostate institution under the popes and priests. It became the power that carried this apostate church. Thus the woman is represented as sitting upon this scarlet-colored beast. This beast was imperial Rome under popes and priests, but was virtually the same as heathen imperial Rome. This makes clear why, in symbol, the same horns of imperial Rome under pagan rule served later as the horns of papal Rome. It was the same power, but clothed differently. These ten horns, as al- ready noted in this chapter, signify the ten divided kingdoms of Rome. These were to give **their strength and power to the beast." Thus they became his horns. The time was to come when these kings would 'hate the whore, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.' This no doubt was fulfilled when the very nations that had once supported po- pery turned against her and sheared her of all TTie Call to Leave Babylon 179 temporal power. Among others, England and Germany effected this, and became the horns, or powers, which supported Protestantism. This beast ascended "out of the bottomless pit" — was of hellish origin. Such is the whole system of popery. It emanated from hell, and shall "go into destruction." This very beast will finally be "cast alive into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone" (Rev. 19: 20). "And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17: 18). This is Babylon the Great, the Roman Catholic sect. She is the great whore. She is guilty of "the blood of the saints, and of the martyrs of Jesus." History shows that she glutted herself with the blood of nearly fifty million saints. The bride of Christ was clothed with the sun ; she wore the robes of righteousness. But this woman "was clothed round about with purple and scarlet." This apostate woman Christ never acknowledged as his bride. THE CALL TO LEAVE BABYLON We have seen that "Babylon the great" of Revelation 17 consists of a family, a mother and her harlot daughters. The mother is the Church 180 Roman Catholicism of Rome, while the daughters are in particular the Protestant sects. This fraternity of so- called churches, from Rome down to the latest born daughter, does not represent the pure bride, "the Lamb's wife." Of his bride the Lord said, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee." "One is my dove, my perfect one is but one." "And it is granted to her that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white. For the fine linen are the justifications of saints." "That I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." God has but one family, his household. Since no man can rightly have two families, God has but one church, which is the holy family. Ignorantly many honest souls, as well as true children of God, have been led to join these apostate institutions. We do not doubt that the Church of Rome holds within her fold many sincere and honest people whose hearts are longing for better things. We have a warm and tender feeling for these dear people. It is not them that we antagonize, but the apos- tate, corrupt religion and teaching that is des- troying their souls. "And another angel followed, saying: That great Babylon is fallen, is fallen ; which made all nations to drink of the wine of the wrath of her The Call to Leave Babylon 181 fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice: If any man shall adore the beast and his image, and receive his character in his forehead, or in his hand; he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, . . . neither have they rest day nor night, who have adored the beast, and his image, and whosoever receiveth the character of his name" (Rev. 14:8-11). "And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, hav- ing great power : and the earth was enlightened with his glory. And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird. Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies" (Rev. 18:1-3). This language is similar to that of Rev. 17 : 2-5. Practically the same things that are said of the woman of Revelation 17 are here said of the great Babylon which is the habitation of devils. "And I heard another voice from heaven, say- ing: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you re- 182 Roman CatJioUcism ceive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath re- membered her iniquities" (Rev. 18:4, 5). A further description of her fall will be found by reading Rev. 18:8-19. All this is present truth. Thfe angel in these texts stands for the entire ministry of the pres- ent time. These flying messengers are God's holy ministers, who are trumpeting to all na- tions the solemn warnings from heaven. This is a time of the Lord's vengeance against all false religions of earth. He has set his hand to gather out his people, and to prepare his church, so that she may be presented holy, with- out spot or wrinkle, when he comes. A solemn voice from heaven says, "Go out from her." Dear reader, for the good of your soul, obey this solemn injunction from the Almighty. Tens of thousands have already done so, and are abid- ing in Christ alone, in his true church — the Zion of God. Have a part in this great gathering, which is the preparation of the bride for the coming of the Bridegroom. The End. BOMAN CATHOLICISM IN THE LIGHT OF HER OWN SCRIPTUEES AND HISTORY By H. M. Riggle A treatise contrasting the Church of God and the Eoman Catholic Church. The line of demarc- ation between the true and the false is clearly and unmistakably drawn. For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church has denominated herself the Only True and Infallible Church. The fact that the Rom- ish Church existed prior to Protestantism has deluded many souls and caused them to believe it to have been the apostolic church. The Romish Church is Not Apostolic The author emphasizes the fact that the Rom- ish Church did not spring into existence until the third century, as one of the evidences that she is not the church that Christ founded during his earthly ministry. In Roman Catholicism in the Light of Her Own Scriptures and Histories the author clearly proves the falsity of the Romish claims to apos- tolicity and infallibility. He gives all quota- tions from the Rheims and Douay versions of the Bible and quotes extensively from their Councils and Ecclesiastical Histories. Where the difference in the rendition of scripture shows a marked difference, the Authorized version is quoted in connection. This book fills a I'ong- felt want and should be owned and read by both Christian and non-Christian. Cloth, $1.00. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, XT. S. A. BIBLE BEADINGS For Bible Students and For the Home and Fireside By S. L. Speck and H. M. Biggie Convenient Arrangement of Scriptural Texts How frequently the Bible reader wishes to find a line of scrip- tures on some special subject, but is puz- zled as to where he can find just what he desires. To have at hand a convenient ar- rangement of Scrip- tural texts classified under their proper headings will help in getting a better grasp of the Bible and of the Faith once deliv- ered to the saints. Two Hundred Eighty-two Interesting Subjects This interesting book gives many thousands of Scriptural references under two hundred eighty- two interesting subjects. A complete topical in- dex enables one to readily find the subject de- sired. One who has never made use of such a book can hardly realize its value in Bible study. Becommended to Pastors, Teachers, and Young People This work is recommended to pastors, teach- ers, and young people and all who desire to bet- ter acquaint themselves with the Word of God. The supply of this book is limited. It will not be reprinted. Cloth, Net, 60 cents. GOSPEL TBUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. CHBIST'S KINGDOM AND BEIGN By H. M. Biggie The kingdom of Christ and his reign have been a subject of controversy for centuries. The heresies that have arisen as a result of a mis- interpretation of Scripture have been, and still are, multitudinous. For this reason it has be- come necessary that persons making a study of Bible themes be very cautious in selecting books for study. Christ's Kingdom and Reign, by H. M. Biggie, is a new work and deals with the subject in a conclusive manner. This book is of vital inter- est and should be read by all. The following chapter titles will give a slight idea of its real work. Chapter Titles What Constitutes a Kingdom; *'The Kingdom of God'' and **The Kingdom of Heaven"; Christ's Kingdom Present; The Nature of Christ's Kingdom; The Kingdom of Grace; Christ's Kingdom Foretold by the Prophets; The Christian Dispensation; The Time Is Fulfilled; Christ on David's Throne; The Great Redemp- tive Reign; The Reign of God's Saints on Earth; Two Periods of Reigning Prophesied; The Thou- sand Years' Reign with Christ; Different Phases of the Kingdom Explained; The Lion and the Lamb Shall Feed Together; There Shall be No More Infant of Days; The Desert Shall Blossom as the Rose; The Nations Shall Learn War No More; The Binding and Loosing of the Dragon; When Shall the Earth be Full of the Knowledge of the Lord? Will There be Another Church? The Future Kingdom of Glory. Cloth, $1. GOSPEL TEUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, XT. S. A. MAN, HIS PRESENT AND FUTURE By H. M. Biggie Questions concern- ing the state of man after death and after the resurrection are everywhere discussed by the thoughtful as well as by the care- less. Here is a book that will prove inter- esting and truly in- structive to those who are anxious to know what the Scrip- tures teach on these and kindred subjects. The doctrine on ma- terialism is consider- ed and proved to be wrong. A chapter is de- voted to Hades, the abode of spirits between the death of the body and the judgment. This book makes clear by the Word of God the Scriptural truth of final and everlasting punish- ment. Table of Contents Man; His Present State; Materialism; The Nature of Man in His Present State; The Hu- man Spirit in Union with an Animal Body; Death; Death a Separation; The State in Which Human Spirits Are Separated from Their An- imal Bodies; Confirming Words and Dying Tes- timonies; Hades: the World of Departed Spirits; Materialists' Arguments Considered; Conditional Immortality; The Kesurrection ; The General Judgment; The Eternal Home of the Eedeemed; The Final and Eternal Doom of the Wicked. 206 pages. Oloth, 50 cents. GOSPEL TBUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. cg^CHRlSTlAN CHURCH Iti rue anrynjs THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; Its Rise and Progress By H. M. Higgle A Timely, Stirring Book By the statement of Christ himself we are assured that he has founded a church against which the *' gates of hell shall not prevail. ' ' Just what this church is, the numerous figures under which it is de- scribed, and its many unchanging attributes are convincingly set forth. Four prin- cipal divisions or ages are treated: Morning Light, Papal Age, Prot- estant Age of Sects, Evening Time. Reveals the One Church The author shows the uselessness and error of mere external church organization and re- veals the one church, the Lamb's bride, in her glorious beauty, simplicity, and power. Read the book and lend it to others. ^BNBIGGIX 488 pages. Cloth bound. $1.00. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPAlTy, Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. CHRIST'S TRIUMPHAL REIGN By H. M. Riggle A clear, forceful presentation of the truth relative to the reign of Christ. It refutes the idea that Christ will not reign until the sup- posed millennium of one thousand years, and clearly shows that he is now on David's throne, Christ is King during this present dispensation, and his reign is universal. He only is ' ' King of kings and Lord of lords." Distribute them widely among your neighbors and friends, and thus instruct them on this im- portant subject. 30 pages. Paper cover. 5 cents each; 40 cents a dozen; $3 a hundred. THE SABBATH By H. M. Riggle The subject is clearly and briefly set forth from both the Old and New Testament view- points. The teachings on this question prove that the Jewish Sabbath of the Mosaic dispensa- tion was done away in Christ, having its fulfil- ment in him. The Sabbath of the New Testa- ment is clearly explained. An excellent booklet for those in doubt regarding which day should be observed as *'unto the Lord." 32 pages. 5 cents each. 40 cents a dozen. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. OHEISTIAN BAPTISM, The Lord's Supper, and Feet-Washing By H. M. Eiggle The writer plain- ly shows by Scrip- ture and other re- liable evidence that baptism by immersion is the only method prac- tised in the early Christian church. The truth concern- i n g the Lord 's Supper and feet- washing is given in a comprehen- sive and convinc- ing manner. Part I. Baptism Scriptural Testi- mony and Exam- ples of Immersion; Sprinkling Not Baptism ; The Voice of History — Infant Baptism; Proper Candidates for Baptism; The Design of Baptism; Born of Water and of the Spirit; John's Baptism. Part II. The Lord's Supper What Constitutes the Lord's Supper? Did Christ and His Disciples Eat the Passover? When Was the Lord's Supper Instituted? What It Teaches; Who Are Worthy? Part III. Feet- Washing Feet-washing Commanded; Christ Instituted It; Time and Place of Its Institution; To Be Ob- served in Public Assembly of Saints; The Ee- ligious Aspect of Feet-washing; Delivered to the Churches by the Apostles; Historic Proof. Cloth, 50 cents. PRIMITIVE CHURCH GOVERNMENT By H. M. Riggle This booklet shows the kind of government under which the early Christian church existed. It thoroughly explains the terms ^ ' elder, " " evan- gelist," ''apostle," ''pastor," "teacher," "bishop," and "deacon," from the Scriptural usages of the words. These are but a few of the interesting explanations given. Extracts from the Bible as well as from History, are used to explain and substantiate the statements. Noth- ing is left to be disputed because of a lack of proof. 56 pages. 5 cents each. 40 cents a dozen. HELL AND EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT By H. M. Riggle It is surprizing how many believe the teach- ings of those who seek to overthrow the doc- trine of everlasting punishment. When a man is thoroughly convinced that he will simply be blotted out of existence and thus be freed from the sense of eternal misery, he will in many cases, prefer a life spent in sinful pleasure to a life spent in humble Christian service. When a man is deceived on one subject, he may become a prey to other false spirits and be more easily deceived on other subjects. This booklet gives Bible teachings concerning hell; it shows that the wicked will be punished, not simply anni-* hilated. Books are among the necessities of life — true, deep spiritual life. To attain to the heights God has designed, it is essential that one read the books that will help him better understand the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. 64 pages. Paper, 10 cents. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, U. S. A. THE SABBATH AND THE LORD'S DAY By H. M. Biggie The origin of the Old Testament Sabbath (seventh day) observance is clearly shown. The different chapters tell when the Sabbath was first enjoined upon man; that it was of a ceremonial nature — a type of spiritual rest in Christ — and was abolished by his coming. It also shows that the Jewish Sabbath was not commanded to be observed in the Christian dispensation. For Seventh Day Observers The book is designed to convince seventh-day observers of the fallacy of their position. *'The Sabbath and the Lord's Day" contains teaching on a subject greatly misunderstood. Everybody should get a copy and read it. Illustrated. 238 pages. Paper, 25 cents. Cloth, 50 cents. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY, Anderson, Indiana, TJ. S. A. Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724) 779-21 1 1