(4.) Whensoever the Romish Clergy shallprovethe unwritten traditions of their Church to have been received from Christ and his apostles with as much certainty, as the Thessalonians and Corinthiansknewwhat they had personally received from the mouth of St. Paul: we will cheerfully attend to them with all due reverence.
(5.) Both on the principle of our Lord’s own censure of the rabbinical traditions, and likewise on the principle of plain common sense, we cannot embrace oral traditions purporting to be God’s unwritten word; when they arepalpably irreconcileable with, andgrossly contradictory to, God’s own acknowledged written word.
III. We may now, in the way of historical testimony, go on profitably to hear the ancient Fathers: those identical old orthodox Fathers to wit; whom, in respect to the present question, the doctors of the Council of Trent, as the reader may peradventure recollect, claim as being clearly and indisputably quite their own.
1. Let us first attend to Irenèus in the second century.
(1.) The disposition of our salvation we know not through any other persons, than those by whom the Gospel has come to us: which then, indeed, they themselves orally preached; but which afterward, according to the will of God, they traditionally handed down to usIN THE WRITTEN WORD, as the future basis and column of our faith.[34]
(2.) When the Gnostics are confuted fromSCRIPTURE, their answer is: that,By those who are ignorant ofUNWRITTEN TRADITION,truth cannot be discovered fromTHE WRITTEN WORD;for truth wasdelivered,not(merely)through letters,but through the living voice.[35a]
2. Let us next hear Tertullian in the second and third centuries.
As for Hermogenes, let his shop produceTHE WRITTEN WORD. If he be unable to produceTHE WRITTEN WORDin substantiation of his tenets; let him dread that scripturalWoe, which is destined to those who either add to it or detract from it.[35b]
3. Let us next hear Hippolytus in the third century.
There is one God, whom we know from no other authority, thanTHE HOLY SCRIPTURES.—Whatsoever matters, then,THE DIVINE SCRIPTURESdeclare; these let us learn: and, whatsoever matters they teach; these let us recognise:—not according to our own humour or according to our own mind, neither with any wresting of the things delivered from God; but, even as he himself wishedTHROUGH THE HOLY SCRIPTURESto shew us, thus let us learn.[35c]
4. Let us next hear Cyprian in the third century.
Whence is that pretendedTRADITION? Does it descend from the authority of the Lord and the Gospels: or does it come down from the mandates and letters of the Apostles? God testifies, that those things are to be done, which areWRITTEN.—If, then, any such precept can be found,EITHER IN THE GOSPEL OR IN THE EPISTLES AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES:—let this divine and holy (written) tradition be observed.[35d]
5. Let us next hear Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century.
Respecting the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a tittle ought to be delivered without the authority ofTHE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Neitherought any thing to be propounded, on the basis of mere credibility, or through the medium of plausible ratiocination. Neither yet repose the slightest confidence in the bare assertions of me your Catechist, unless you shall receive fromTHE HOLY SCRIPTURESfoil demonstration of the matters propounded. For the security of our faith depends, not upon verbal trickery, but upon demonstration fromTHE HOLY SCRIPTURES.[36a]
6. Let us next hear the great Athanasius in the fourth century.
(1.) The holy and divinely inspiredSCRIPTURESare sufficient for the declaration of the truth.[36b]
(2.) Let a person solely learn the matters, which are set forth inTHE SCRIPTURES: for the demonstrations, contained in them, are, in order to the settling of this point, quite sufficient and complete.[36c]
(3.) If ye are disciples of the Gospels,—walk according toWHAT IS WRITTEN. But, if you choose to allege any other mattersBEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN: why do you contend against us,WHO WILL NEVER BE PERSUADED EITHER TO HEAR OR TO SPEAK A SINGLE SYLLABLE BEYOND GOD’S WRITTEN WORD?[36d]
(4.) These; namely, the canonical books of Scripture, from which the apocryphal books are carefully excluded by the accurate Father: These are the fountains of salvation; so that he, who thirsts, may drink from the oracles contained in them. InTHESE ALONEis the evangelical school of piety. Let no one add to them: and let no one detract from them.[36e]
(5.) It is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speakTHE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN.[36f]
(6.) WhatTHE WRITTEN WORDhad never revealed, you will never be able to discover.[37a]
7. Let us next hear Basil in the fourth century.
(1.) It is a manifest apostasy from the faith, and a clear proof of arrogance, either to disregard any matter ofTHE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN, Or to introduce argumentatively any matter ofTHE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTEN.[37b]
(2.)THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTENbelieve:THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTENSeek not after.[37c]
8. Let us next hear Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries.
(1.) As we deny notTHE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN:SO THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT WRITTENwe reject. We believe, that God was born of a virgin;BECAUSE WE READ IT: we believe not, that Mary was married after her parturition;BECAUSE WE READ IT NOT.[37d]
(2.) Learn, then, inTHE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, through whichALONEyou can understand the full will of God, that some things are prohibited and that other things are commanded, that some things are granted and that other things are persuaded.[37e]
9. Finally, let us hear Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Demonstrate, from any one ofTHE CANONICAL APOSTLES AND PROPHETS, the truth of what Cyprian has written to Jubaianus: and I should then have no room for contradiction. But now, since what you produce isNOT CANONICAL; through the liberty, to which the Lord hath called us, I receive not the decision.[37f]
IV. From the evidence now faithfully laid before him, the prudent inquirer is invited to judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, ofthe concurrentEQUALauthority of Unwritten Tradition and the insufficiency of the Written Word alone, be warranted either by Scripture or by the early Fathers.
Meanwhile the following questions may not be altogether unworthy of his attention.
1. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, agreeably to their own formal and distinct profession, follow the example of the old orthodox Fathers, when they decide: thatthe Written Word of God,and the Unwritten Traditions of the Latin Church,are to be received by the faithful with anEQUALaffection and pious reverence?
2. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy imitate the Gnostics: who, when they were confuted from Scripture, were accustomed to reply; that,by those who are ignorant of Unwritten Tradition,truth cannot be discovered from the Written Word.
3. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy copy the example of Cyril of Jerusalem: who declared, that,respecting the faith,NOT A TITTLEought to be delivered without the authority of the Holy Scriptures; and who exhorted his Catechumens torepose notTHE SLIGHTEST CONFIDENCEin his assertions,unless they should receive from the Holy Scriptures full demonstration of the matters propounded?
4. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy teach, with Athanasius: that,the ScripturesALONEare sufficient for the declaration of the truth; and that,in the canonical ScripturesALONE,to the exclusion of the Apocrypha,is the evangelical school of piety?
5. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy declare, with the same illustrious Father: thatthey will never be persuaded either to hear or to speakA SINGLE SYLLABLEbeyond God’s written word?
6. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy pronounce,still with the great Athanasius: thatit is the part of mere triflers to propound and to speak the things which are not written?
7. Do, or do not, the doctors of the Council of Trent, and after them our present Romish Clergy, take up, and make their own, the ancient pithy distinction of Jerome:The things which are written we acknowledge;the things which are not written we reject?
8. Do, or do not, the Romish Clergy, make a point, with Tertullian, ofalways requiring the production of proof from the Written Word: and do they, or do they not, allow and maintain, with the same Father; thathe,who is unable to produce the Written Word in substantiation of his tenets,but who for that purpose resorts to Unwritten Tradition,may well dread the awful Woe so justly denounced against those who either add to it or detract from it?
9. Finally, in their several estimates of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word, and in their several modes of conducting those theological controversies which respect the authoritative rule of faith and practice, do the Romish Clergy or the Reformed Clergy approximate most closely to Holy Scripture and to the ancient orthodox Fathers?
Fromthe perfect equality of Unwritten Tradition and the Written Word of God, we may next proceed to the doctrine of Meritorious Satisfaction.
I. The Church of Rome lays down her decision, respecting what she callsWorks of Satisfaction, in manner following.
So great is the abundance of divine munificence,that we are able to make satisfaction to God the Father through Jesus Christ,not only by punishmentseither spontaneously undergone by ourselves for the avenging of sin or imposed upon us by the will of the priest according to the measure of our offence,but also(what is the greatest argument of love)by temporal flagellations inflicted of God and by us patiently endured.[40a]
II. Thus speaks the Roman Church: let us now hear the declarations of Holy Scripture.
1.When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,say:We are unprofitable servants;we have done that which it was our duty to do.[40b]
2.Two men went up into the temple to pray:the one,a Pharisee;and the other,a Publican.The Pharisee stood,and prayed thus with himself:God,I thank thee,that I am not as other men are,extortioners,unjust,adulterers,or even as this Publican.I fast twice in the week:I give tythes of all that I possess.And the Publican,standing afar off,would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven;but smote upon his breast,saying:God be merciful to me a sinner!I tell you:This man went down to his house justified rather than the other:for every one,that exalteth himself,shall be abased;and he,that humbleth himself,shall be exalted.[40c]
3.Where is boasting then?It is excluded.By what law?Of works?Nay,but by the law of faith.Therefore we conclude:that a man is justified by faith,without the deeds of the law.[40d]
4.If Abraham were justified by works,he hath whereof to glory,but not before God.For what saith the Scripture?Abraham believed God:and it was counted unto him for righteousness.Now,to him that worketh,is the reward reckoned,not of grace,but of debt.But,to him that worketh not,but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,his faith is counted for righteousness.[40e]
5.Therefore,being justified by faith,we have peace with God,through our Lord Jesus Christ.[41a]
6.They,being ignorant of God’s righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness,have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.[41b]
7.We are all as an unclean thing:and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.[41c]
III. Let us next attend to the language of the old orthodox Fathers.
1. Clement of Rome, in the first century, speaks as follows.
All, therefore, have been glorified and magnified, not through themselves or through their own works of righteousness which they have done, but through the will of God. Wherefore, being called through his will in Christ Jesus, we are justified, not through ourselves, or through our own wisdom or intellect or piety, or through the works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified us all from everlasting.[41d]
2. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, in the first or second century, speaks exactly to the same purpose.
What else can cover our sins, than the righteousness of Christ? In what can we lawless and impious wretches be justified, save only in the Son of God?[41e]
3. Ambrose of Milan, in the fourth century, still holds the same language.
(1.) By what labours, by what injuries, can we lighten our sins? The sufferings of this time are, in reference to future glory, altogether unworthy. Hence, toward man, the form of celestial decreesproceeds, not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God.[42a]
(2.) Would that the Lord would not reject, but collect, this my mere stubble in the harvest, these empty wild oats of my fructification!—It is fitting, therefore, to believe; both that penance is to be performed, and that pardon is to be granted: nevertheless, in such manner, that we should hope for pardon, as from faith, not as from debt.[42b]
4. Augustine, in the fourth and fifth centuries, exactly agrees with his predecessors.
The sins are thine: the merits are God’s. To thee punishment is due: and when the reward shall come, he will crown his own gifts, not thy merits.[42c]
IV. Let the patient enquirer now judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine, thatPunishments,either self-inflicted,or commanded by a priest,or sent in the course of God’s providence,can make satisfaction to the Father through Christ in our behalf, be the doctrine either of Scripture or of the early Church.
V. But, if no man can make satisfaction forhis ownsins: still less, according to the monstrous phantasy of Supererogation, can he make satisfaction for the sins ofothers.
Yet this impious absurdity was openly advanced in the papal bull for the observation of a jubilee is the recent year 1825.
We have resolved, says Pope Leo,BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US FROM HEAVEN,fully to unlock that sacred treasure,composed of the merits,sufferings,and virtues,of Christ our Lord and of his Virgin-Mother and of all the Saints,WHICH THE AUTHOR OF HUMAN SALVATION HAS ENTRUSTED TOOUR DISPENSATION.—To you,therefore,venerable brethren,Patriarchs,Primates,Archbishops,Bishops,it belongs to explain with perspicuity the power of Indulgences:what is their efficacy in the remission,not only of the canonical penance,but also of the temporal punishment due to the divine justice for past sin;and what succour is afforded,out of this heavenly treasure,from the merits of Christ and his Saints,to such as have departed real penitents in God’s love,yet before they had duly satisfied by fruits worthy of penance for sins of commission and omission,and are now purifying in the fire of Purgatory,that an entrance may be opened for them into their eternal country where nothing defiled is admitted.
1. Where is Pope Leo’sPROOFof the validity of his claim toan authority given to him from heaven:by virtue of which authority he fully unlocks a sacred treasure,composed of the merits of Christ and the Virgin Mary and all the Saints,and entrusted by the blessed author of our salvation to the wisdom of his doling out?
Let suchPROOFbe produced, if the Romish Clergycanproduce it, either from the Bible, or even from the received doctrine of the primitive Church Catholic.
2. By what evidence does Pope LeoSUBSTANTIATEhis assertion: thatSouls in Purgatory are benefited by the supererogatory merits of the Virgin Mary and the Saints strangely associated with the all-sufficient merits of the Redeemer?
Let the Romish Clergy, if they beable,SUBSTANTIATEthis most extraordinary allegation.
3. Where is Pope Leo’sPROOFof the very position, upon which the whole of his bull professedly reposes; the position, to wit: thatThe Virgin Mary and the Saints not only have merit enough to make satisfaction for their own sins,but have even merit to spare for the benefit of less privileged souls in Purgatory?
From the Bible or from the Doctors of the primitive Church, let his venerable brethren, Patriarchs,Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, bring forward, if they can accomplish such a feat, thePROOFof this very remarkable position.
ISHALLnext examine the doctrine and practice of Saint-worship, Image-worship, Relic-worship, and Cross-worship.
I. In exhibiting the tenets of the Romish Church and Clergy on these several points, I shall successively give: the decision of the council of Trent; the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors; and the actual practice of the Romanists themselves as the best explanation of their received tenets.
1. Let us first hear the decision of the Council of Trent.
All Bishops,and others who discharge the duty of teaching,must diligently instruct the faithful,concerning the intercession and invocation of the Saints,the honouring of Relics,and the legitimate use of Images.
For this purpose,they must teach them:that the Saints,reigning with Christ,offer up their prayers to God for men;and that it is good and useful,suppliantly to invoke them,and to flee to their prayers and assistance for the purpose of obtaining benefits from God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only Redeemer and Saviour.
Furthermore,they must teach them:that those,who deny that the Saints in heaven ought to be invoked,or who assert either that they do not pray for men or that the invoking of them to pray for us is idolatry or that it is contrary to God’s word and adverseto the honour of Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and man or that it is foolish by voice or in mind to supplicate those who reign in heaven,think impiously.
They must also teach them:that the holy bodies of the Saints and Martyrs and others living with Christ are to be venerated by the faithful,through which many benefits are afforded from God to men;so that the affirmers,that veneration and honour are not due to the Relics of the Saints,or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful,or that it is vain to celebrate the memories of the Saints for the purpose of obtaining their assistance,are wholly to be condemned,as the Church long since condemned and still condemns them.
Likewise,they must teach them:that the Images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God and of the other Saints are especially to be had and retained in Churches,and that due honour and veneration are to be paid to them;not that any divinity or virtue,on account of which they ought to be worshipped,is believed to be inherent in them;or that any thing is to be sought from them;or that trust is to be placed in Images,as was formerly done by the Gentiles,who placed their hope in Idols;but because the honour,which is paid to them,is referred to the originals which they represent;so that,through the Images which we kiss and before which we uncover our heads and bow down prostrate,we adore Christ and venerate the Saints whose similitude they bear.[45]
2. Let us next, upon the doctrinal and practical system of the professedly unchangeable Church of Rome, hear the comments of some of the most approved Latin Doctors both before and after the Council of Trent.
(1.) From Thomas Aquinas, who was not only a mighty Schoolman but also a canonised Saint of the Roman Church, we may clearly hope to derive the very best and most accurate instruction as to therealtenets of his Communion. Now this writer, through the medium of a syllogism professedly framed upon anauthorisedPrayer in the Breviary, establishes theDUTYof worshipping the cross with the self-same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity.
We offer the supreme adoration of Latria to that Being,in whom we place our hope of salvation.But we place our hope of salvation in the cross of Christ:for the Church sings;Hail,O cross,our only hope in this time of passion,increase righteousness to the pious,and grant pardon to the guilty.Thereforethe cross of Christ is to be adored with the supreme adoration of Latria.[46a]
(2.) Much wholesome instruction, in regard to the legitimate use of Images, may also be derived from the expositorial comment of James Naclantus Bishop of Clugium.
We must not only confess,that the faithful in the Church worship before an Image;as some over-squeamish souls might peradventure express themselves:but we must furthermore confess,without the slightest scruple of conscience,thatTHEY ADORE THE VERY IMAGE ITSELF;for,in sooth,they venerate it with the identical worship wherewith they venerate its prototype.Hence,IF THEY ADORE THE PROTOTYPE WITH THAT DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS RENDERED TO GOD AND WHICH TECHNICALLY BEARS THE NAME OF LATRIA,THEY ADORE ALSO THE IMAGE WITH THE SAME LATRIA OR SUPREME DIVINE WORSHIP:and,if they adore the prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia,they are bound also to adore the Image with the self-same species of inferior worship.[46b]
(3.) In exactly the same expository strain proceeds Gabriel Biel, in his Lectures upon the Canon of the Mass.
If there shall be Images of Christ,THEY ARE ADORED WITH THE SAME SPECIES OF ADORATION AS CHRIST HIMSELF,THAT IS,WITH THE SUPREME ADORATION CALLED LATRIA:if,of the most blessed Virgin;with the worship of Hyperdulia.[47a]
(4.) The commentary of Peter de Medrano will throw yet additional light on the subject.
We must say:that,to our Lady the Mother of God,there has been granted the remarkable privilege of being physically and really present in some of her statues or images.—Hence we must piously believe:that,in some celebrated statues or images of herself,she is inherent and present,personally,physically,and really;—in order that,in them,she may receive,from faithful worshippers,her due adoration.[47b]
(5.) Yet still further light breaks in upon us from the statements of Aringhi, penned and published at Rome under the very nose of the sovereign Pontiff.
This Image,translated from the city of Edessa,is at once preserved as a bulwark against mad Image-breakers,and is set forth to be taken up andADOREDby the faithful.[47c]
Within these few years,under every Pope successively,some or other of our sacred Images,especially of the more ancient,have made themselves illustrious,and have acquiredA PECULIAR WORSHIP AND VENERATION,by the exhibition of fresh miracles;as it is notorious to all,who dwell in this city.[47d]
3. Let us finally attend to the actual liturgical practice of the Romanists themselves, as the best explanation of the tenets received and inculcated by their Clergy: for, clearly, as men are taught to believeand to act, so will their authorised public prayers be constructed.
(1.) Hail, O cross, our only hope in this time of passion: increase righteousness to the pious, and grant pardon to the guilty.[48a]
(2.) Holy Mary, succour the miserable, assist the pusillanimous, comfort the mournful.[48b]
(3.) O singular Virgin, mild among all, make us, being delivered from our sins, mild and chaste. Grant us purity of life; prepare for us a safe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may always jointly rejoice.[48c]
(4.) Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from the enemy, and receive us in the hour of death. Unloose their bonds to the guilty: give light to the blind: drive away our evils: demand all good things. Shew thyself to be a mother. Let him, who for us endured to be thy son, receive our prayers through thee.[48d]
(5.) O George, illustrious martyr, praise and glory become thee.—We beseech thee, in our inmost heart, that, with all the faithful, we may be joined to the citizens of heaven, being washed from our impurities.[48e]
(6.) O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the Saviour, make us in mind worthy of the honour of the Deity. According to the promise of Christ, for what thou askest thou obtainest, grant unto thy sorrowful people the gifts, which in dying thou besoughtest.[48f]
(7.) O ye eleven thousand glorious girls, lilies of virginity, roses of martyrdom, defend me in life by granting me your assistance: and shew yourselves in death, by bringing the last comfort.[48g]
(8.) O holy Mary; our sovereign queen, as God the Father, by his omnipotence, has made thee most powerful; so assist us, at the hour of death, by defendingus against all power that is contrary to thine.Hail,Mary! O holy Mary, our sovereign queen, as God the Son has endowed thee with so much knowledge and charity that it enlightens all heaven; so, in the hour of death, illustrate and strengthen our souls with the knowledge of the true faith, that they may not be perverted by error or pernicious ignorance.Hail,Mary! O holy Virgin, our sovereign queen, as the Holy Ghost has plentifully poured forth into thee the love of God; so instil into us, at the hour of death, the sweetness of divine love, that all bitterness at that time may become acceptable and pleasant to us.Hail,Mary![49a]
(9.) Hail Mary, lady and mistress of the world, to whom all power has been given both in heaven and in earth![49b]
II. After this ample statement of the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church, it will be useful for us to observe, bothnegativelywhat the Bibledoes notsay, andpositivelywhat the Bibledoessay, on the subject now before us.
1. In the first place, then, so far as respects thenegativepart of the question, the Bible isTOTALLY SILENT, as to the Trent-inculcated duty, of invoking Saints, venerating Relics, and kissing and uncovering the head and falling prostrate before Images either in nitches or upon crucifixes.
ItNO WHERErecognises or recommends any such practices and notions: as those, of invoking dead Saints, to aid us by their prayers, or to grant us purity of life, or to unloose the bands of the guilty, or to make us mild and chaste, or to defend us in life, or to assist us in the hour of death; of celebrating their memories, for the avowed purpose of obtaining theirhelp and protection; of much benefit being derived, from God to man by the veneration of Relics; of worshipping Christ and venerating the Saints, through the medium of worship and veneration paid relatively to Images; of beseeching the cross, a mere dumb piece of wood even if any of its remains should now be actually in existence, to increase righteousness to the pious and to grant pardon to the guilty.
From beginning to end,NOT A SYLLABLEof sanction or approbation, in regard to any such phantasies can we discover in the Holy Scriptures.
Hence, even to say the very least of the matter, the doctrine, avowedly taught and liturgically introduced by the Church of Rome, has not the slightest support or warrant from the Written Word of God. Whatever be the ground, upon which it rests: at all events, it clearly restsnotupon the Bible.
3. But this is not all. For, in the second place, so far as respects thepositivepart of the question, Holy Scripture is full and expressAGAINSTany worship or invocation of the creature, however disguised or modified or palliated by the closely harmonizing distinctions and definitions of Paganism and Popery: inasmuch as the Pagans, though slanderously misrepresented by the doctors of the Council of Trent, did in truth defend their Idol-worship against the primitive Christians, on the self-same plea and principle ofrelative adoration, as the said doctors themselves and their followers the Romish Clergy defend their Image-worship against us Reformed Catholics.[50]
(1.)Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven.above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth.Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them,nor serve them:for I,the Lord thy God,am a jealous God,visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.[51a]
(2.)Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image,an abomination unto the Lord,the work of the hands of the craftsman.[51b]
(3.)They,that make a graven image,are all of them vanity;and their delectable things shall not profit:and they are their own witnesses;they see not,nor know;that they may be ashamed.[51c]
(4.)None considereth in his heart,neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say:I have burned part of it in the fire;yea also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof;I have roasted flesh,and eaten it:and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination;shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?[51d]
(5.)What profiteth the graven image,that the maker thereof hath graven it:the molten image,and a teacher of lies,that the maker of his work trusteth therein to make dumb idols?Woe unto him that saith to the wood;Awake:to the dumb stone;Arise,it shall teach.Behold,it is laid over with gold and silver;and there is no breath at all in the midst of it.[51e]
(6.)Then said Jesus unto him:Get thee hence,Satan:for it is written;Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,and him only shalt thou serve.[51f]
(7.)Let no man beguile you of your reward,in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,intrudinginto those things which he hath not seen,vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.[52a]
(8.)When I had heard and seen,I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.Then saith he unto me:See thou do it not;for I am thy fellow-servant and of thy brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book.Worship God.[52b]
(9.)When the people saw what Paul had done,they lifted up their voices,saying in the speech of Lycaonia:The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.And they called Barnabas Jupiter;and Paul Mercurius,because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter,which was before their city,brought oxen and garlands unto the gates,and would have done sacrifice with the people.When the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard,they rent their clothes,and ran in among the people,crying out and saying:Sirs,why do ye these things?We also are men of like passions with you;and preach unto you,that ye should turn away from these vanities unto the living God.[52c]
III. We may now profitably hear the testimony of the early ecclesiastical writers.
1. The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp, was written about the middle of the second century.
Nicetas was urged by the envious and the wicked to intercede with the governor, that the remains of Polycarp should not be delivered for sepulture: lest, leaving him that was crucified, the Christians, it was suggested, should begin to worship this person. These things they said, at the instigation of the Jews: because they were ignorant; that neither can we ever forsake Christ who suffered for the salvation of the saved throughout the whole world, nor thatwe can ever worship any other. For him, being the Son of God, we adore: but the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their special affection to their own King and Master.[53a]
2. Clement of Alexandria flourished in the second century.
(1.) Images, wrought by mean artizans, are produced from worthless materials. Therefore they themselves must be worthless and profane.[53b]
(2.) An image, truly, is mere dead matter, fashioned by the hand of the artizan. But, with us Christians, there is no sensible representation formed out of sensible matter. God, the alone true God, is our intellectual image.[53c]
3. Minucius Felix lived in the third century.
(1.) Why have the Christians no altars, no temples, no known images?[53d]
(2.) We neither worship crosses, nor wish for them.[53e]
4. Origen lived in the third century.
(1.) Celsus remarks, that we have neither altars nor images nor temples.—We ought not to dedicate images constructed by the ingenuity of artizans.[53f]
(2) We deem those the most ignorant: who are not ashamed, to address lifeless things, to petition the weak for health, to ask life from the dead, to pray for health from the needy. And, though some may allege, that these images are not gods but only their symbols and representations: yet even such persons, fancying that imitations of the Deity can be made by the hands of some mean artizan, are not a whit less ignorant and slavish and uninstructed. From this sottish stupidity, the very lowest and least informed of us Christians are exempt.[53g]
5. The Council of Elvira sat at the beginning of the fourth century.
It hath seemed good to us, that pictures ought not to be admitted into a church: lest that should be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored.[54a]
6. Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.
We are truly worshippers of God: because we invocate no one of the creatures nor any mere man, but the Son who is by nature from God and true God.[54b]
7. Augustine lived in the fourth and fifth centuries.
(1.) Let not our point of religion be the worship of dead men. For though they lived piously; still they are not to be accounted of, as requiring from us any such honours: but they rather wish us to worship him, through whose illumination they rejoice that we should be partners of their merit. They are to be honoured, therefore, on account of imitation; not to be prayed to on account of religion.[54c]
(2.) I have known that many are adorers of sepulchres and of pictures:—but the Church herself condemns them, and as bad children studies to correct them.[54d]
8. Epiphanius flourished in the fourth-century.
Let Mary be held in honour: but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be worshipped. As for Mary, let no one worship her.[54e]
IV. Once more, let the honest inquirer freely judge and determine for himself, whether the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church and Clergy, relative to Saints and Images and Relics and Crosses, be supported either by Holy Scripture or by Primitive Antiquity.
Thedoctrine of Papal Supremacy shall next be brought to the legitimate test of Scripture and Historical Evidence.
I. We find the claim of this supremacy authoritatively propounded, in manner following.
1.The Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all other Churches.[55a]
2.I acknowledge the holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church to be the mother and mistress of all Churches:and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff,the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles,and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.[55b]
II. Such, in form, is the claim: but where find we its substantiation in the Bible?
1. The Roman Church had indisputably been founded in the apostolic age: for one of St. Paul’s Epistles is addressed to it.
YetNOT A SINGLE SYLLABLEis said in Scripture, either prophetic or declarative, respectingthe divine appointment, and consequentlythe divine right, of the Papal Supremacy.
WeNO WHEREread in Holy Writ: either thatthe Roman Church ought justly to be obeyed,as the mother and mistress of all other Churches; or thatthe Pope is,at once,the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles,and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
From whatever quarter the divines of Trent have made these discoveries: it is quite clear, that the Bible throws no light upon the present subject.
2. The Romish Clergy, however, assure us: that the primacy or monarchy of the entire Catholic Church was, in the following express terms, granted to St. Peter by Christ himself.
Thou art Peter:and upon this rock I will build my Church;and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:and,whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;and,whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,shall be loosed in heaven.[56]
Now, whether our Lord did or did not grant the monarchy of the Church to Peter; respecting which monarchy, by the way, neither claim nor trace can be found in any part of the New Testament: thetruequestion, I apprehend, touches, notPeter, butthe Pope. In other words, it matters little to the point before us, whetherPeterwas or was not divinely appointed the monarch of the Church: unless it canalsobe proved, thatthe Popeis the lawfully and divinely constituted successor to all Peter’s alleged regalities.
Where, then, is the scriptural demonstration of the Pope’s hereditary successorship to the asserted special privileges and authority of St. Peter? In other words, where have we any proof from the Bible: thatThe Roman Pontiff, as the oath in the Tridentine Profession of Faith determines,is,at once,the Successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles,and the Vicar of Jesus Christ?
Truly, the Bible, though we painfully search it through from beginning to end,SAYS NOT ONE WORDabout the matter.
III. But, where the Bible is so provokingly silent, peradventure the earliest Fathers, in delivering their testimony, may be somewhat more communicative.
To establish the Pope’sclaimof rightful successorship to St. Peter, we must obviously establish theFACTthatSt. Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For, since, so far asfoundershipis concerned, St. Peter foundedmanyChurches: the mere circumstance, even if the circumstance were ever so well established, of his havingfoundedthe Roman Church, would no more constitutethe Roman Bishopheir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same privilege tothe Bishop of any other Churchsimilarlyfoundedby St. Peter. Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that ofThe regular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in the same episcopal See,each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted authority of his predecessor, can any intelligible case be made out for the Pope’s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of Christ’s supreme Vicar.
Accordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise matter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present question.
Was,OR WAS NOT,THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CHURCH?
We have here before us a simple question ofFACT: and doubtless, like every other simple question ofFACT, it must be determined by historical testimony.
1.Negatively, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact ofPeter’s diocesan Roman Episcopateis altogether incapable of substantiation through the medium of evidence.
Not a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest intimation, thatPeter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome.
But, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the threeearliestcenturies; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that it can never be established from the interested fictions ofa laterperiod.
2. We may, however, advance beyondnegativeness: though eventhatwere amply sufficient; forno man can be justly required to admit an alleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation.Positively, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages, not only is there no testimony to be foundforthe asserted fact ofPeter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate, but we are absolutely encountered with direct testimonyagainstit.
(1.) Irenèus of Lyons, who lived from the latter end of the first century to the latter end of the second, distinctly attests: thatthe Church of Rome wasJOINTLYfounded by theTWOApostles Peter and Paul; and that,When theTWOApostles had thusJOINTLYfounded it,theyJOINTLYdelivered the Episcopate of their newly founded Society to Linus. Accordingly, in strict agreement with this account of the transaction, Irenèus places Linus theFIRSTin his list of the twelve successive Roman Bishops, who governed that Church, from the time of its original joint foundation by Peter and Paul, down to the year 175 when he published his Work against Heresies.[58a]
Now such an account is plainly incompatible with the pretended fact: thatPeter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome. For the account states: thatPeter and Paul,having jointly founded the Roman Church, committed the episcopate of it to Linus. Whence it dearly follows: that the first diocesan Bishop of Rome wasLinus, notPeter.
(2.) The evidence of Irenèus is directly confirmed by the ancient author of the Apostolical Constitutions.
He gives us a list of the primitive apostolically ordained Bishops: and, in the course of it, he unequivocally states, even in so many words, thatLinus was consecrated theFIRSTBishop of the Roman Church; adding what is not unworthy the attention of the Latin Clergy, that Linus was so consecrated theFIRSTRoman Bishop, not by Peter but by Paul.[58b]
IV. On the grounds now stated, many persons will incline to rest, either partially or wholly, in the strongly expressed judgment of the learned Scaliger.
As for the coming of Peter to Rome,HIS ROMAN EPISCOPATE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS,and his final martyrdom at Rome,no man,whose head can boast a grain of common sense,will believe a single syllable.[59a]
So far as respects theevidenceupon which stands the alleged apostolicity of the peculiar doctrines and practices of Romanism, it will now be useful to hear the various acknowledgments which have been made by the Latin Clergy themselves.
I. Let us begin with that cherished dogma of the Roman Church, the tenet of Transubstantiation.
1. On this point, the theologians of Trent assure us: thatThe words of Christ,as recorded by the Evangelists,SO PLAINLY AND SO DISTINCTLYpropound the doctrine of Transubstantiation,that,on the part of wicked and contentious Protestants,it is both a burning shame and a crying sin to interpret them figuratively.[59b]
2. Yet the great schoolmen, Johannes Scotus, Biel, Occam, Peter ab Alliaco Cardinal-Archbishop of Cambray, Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Fisher of Rochester, have all declared: thatThe doctrine of Transubstantiation isINCAPABLE OF PROOFfrom Scripture; thatThe doctrine of the bread and wine remaining substantially unchanged isLESS REPUGNANTto Scripture,than the doctrine of their transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ; and,consequently, thatThe doctrine of TransubstantiationCANNOT BE DEMONSTRATEDfrom the institutive words of Christ,unless to such words the authoritative decision of the Roman Church be superadded.[60a]
II. Let us next pass to the dogma of Purgatory.
1. The divines of Trent profess to have received the doctrine of Purgatory, both fromthe declaration ofSCRIPTURE, and fromthe ancient tradition ofTHE FATHERS.[60b]
2. Yet Bishop Trevern confesses; thatJesus Christhas not revealed to us the knowledge of Purgatory:[60c]Cardinal Fisher admits; that,Amongthe Ancients,there was either no mention or very rare mention of Purgatory, thatPurgatory was but lately known and received by the Catholic Church, and thatTo this day the Greeks believe not in its existence.[60d]Father Barns tells us; thatPunishment in Purgatory is a doctrine seated in human opinion, thatNeither fromSCRIPTUREnor fromTHE FATHERSnor fromTHE EARLIER COUNCILScan it be firmly deduced, and thatThe contrary opinion seems more conformable to them:[60e]and Petrus Picherellus drily enough remarks; thatInSCRIPTUREthere is no fuel to be found,either to kindle or to maintain the fire of Purgatory.[60f]
III. We may next turn our attention to Image-worship and Saint-worship.
1. The doctors of the Council of Trent declare: thatAccording to the use of the Catholic and Apostolic ChurchRECEIVED IN THE PRIMEVAL TIMES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,the invocation of deadSaints,the veneration of Relics,and the kissing and falling down before graven or molten Images,ought,by the Clergy,to be diligently inculcated upon the Laity.[61a]
2. Yet the learned Jesuit Petavius roundly pronounces it to be a matter of absolute certainty; that,IN THE FIRST AGES OF THE CHURCH,Images of Christ were not substituted in the place of pagan Idols nor proposed to the veneration of the faithful:[61b]while Cardinal Perron tells us; thatNo traces of the practice of invocating the Saints can be foundIN THE AUTHORS,who lived nearest to the times of the Apostles.[61c]
IV. Let us next advert to the high authority ascribed by the Romish Clergy to those Councils which are styledEcumenicalorGeneral.
1. These Ecumenical Councils with the Pope at their head are believed by the Romanists to be, like the Divinity himselfinfallibleandincapable of error.
2. Yet the learned Albert Pighius scruples not to assert: thatGeneral Councils are,not of divine,but of merely human,institution; thatThey originate only from a dictate of right reason,because doubtful matters may be better debated by many than by few,more especially when the many are prudent and experienced persons; thatIn the canonical Scriptures there is not a word about General Councils,nor from the institution of the Apostles did the primitive Church of Christ receive any thing special respecting them: and thatFrom theological grounds it is impossible to demonstrate that the whole Church ought to be represented by a General Council.[61d]
V. Pass we next to the evidence upon whichallthe manifold peculiarities of Romanism claim to repose.
1. The members of the Council of Trent declare: that,In settling and defining the doctrines and practices of their Church,they follow theUNANIMOUS CONSENT AND TESTIMONYof the Holy Fathers.[62a]
2. Yet a modern romish doctor, Mr. Husenbeth, has been driven to confess: that,Although the Latin ClergyOUGHTto be able to trace every point of what he calls Catholic Faith up to the Apostles,they,in truth,CANNOTtrace their peculiarities up to the ApostlesTHROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS OF THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES.[62b]
IV. How persons, who make such acknowledgments, can still have adhered to the communion of the Church of Rome, I pretend not to comprehend, and therefore cannot explain.
Suffice it to say: that the acknowledgmentshavebeen made, and that the individuals have nevertheless most unaccountably maintained and defended their unsubstantiated and confessedly unsubstantiable peculiarities.