{5} The use of this double rule may be seen in any Roman Catholic
writing. Take e.g. the 1st decree of the 25th Session of the Council of
Trent. “Since the Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, has
learned from the Sacred Scriptures, and from the ancient tradition of the
Fathers, that there is a purgatory, &c.” Here is an appeal to two
sources of divine truth, Scripture and Tradition.
{6} Art. VI.
{9} This appears very plainly from a letter of the present Pope, dated,
8th of May, 1844, and addressed to the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops,
and Bishops. He complains of Bible Societies, as “Pretending to
popularize the holy pages, and render them intelligible without the aid
of any interpreter.”
{10a} Eph. iv. 11,12.
{10b} Acts xx. 28.
{10c} 2 Chron. xv. 3.
{12a} Hab. ii. 2.
{12b} John xvi. 13.
{12c} Eph. i. 17.
{13a} 1 John ii. 27.
{13b} In the letter itself, Leo says, “Reprove . . . that the faithful
entrusted to you, (adhering strictly to the rules of our congregation of
the Index,) be persuaded that if the Sacred Scriptures be everywhere
indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise thence,
on account of the rashness of men.” The congregation of the Index, is a
congregation appointed by the Church of Rome to draw up a list of
prohibited books. In the 4th rule they condemn the free circulation of
the Bible. See Appendix A.
It should be observed that these extracts refer not to Protestant, but to
their own Roman Catholic versions. See Mr. Venn’s letter to Mr.
Waterworth, January 15th, 1845.
The present Pope agrees with his predecessors. In the letter above
referred to, dated May the 8th, 1844, he says, “We confirm and renew the
decrees recited above, delivered in former times, by apostolic authority,
against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books
of the Holy Scripture translated into the vulgar tongue.” The motive for
these restrictions appears very plainly from another passage in the same
letter. “Watch attentively over those who are appointed to expound the
Holy Scriptures, and see that they acquit themselves faithfully according
to the capacity of their hearers, and that they dare not under any
pretext whatever, interpret or explain the holy pages contrary to the
tradition of the holy fathers, and to the service of the Catholic
church.” Here are two standards of interpretation laid down, tradition,
and self-interest. The Romish Preacher must not preach even God’s truth,
if it does not happen to serve the purposes of Rome. It seems very
strange that an infallible church should be so afraid of the infallible
word. Appendix B.
{19} Sess. VI. Can. 11. “Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel solâ
imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel solâ peccatorum remissione, exclusâ
gratia et charitate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum
diffundatur, atque illis inhæreat; aut etiam gratiam, quâ justificamur,
esse tantum favorum Dei, anathema sit.”
{23a} James ii. 10, 11.
{23b} Gal. iii. 10.
{24} Article xii. “Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of
faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and
endure the severity of God’s judgment, yet are they pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and
lively faith; inasmuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently
known, as a tree discerned by the fruit.”
{25a} Job xxvii. 7.
{25b} Luke xv. 7.
{25c} Coloss. i. 10.
{26a} John xv. 8.
{26b} Hooker on Justification.
{27} Psalm xix. 3.
{30} The doctrine of supererogation is worse still. According to it
some men do more than is required, and not only satisfy God’s law
themselves, but gain a superfluous merit which may be made over to their
less perfect brethren. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II., De
Pænitentia, 109, 110, “The extreme goodness and clemency of God must be
chiefly praised for this, that he has granted to human weakness that one
shall be allowed to make satisfaction for another, which indeed belongs
especially to this part of penitence, for as with reference to contrition
and confession no man can mourn or confess for another, so those who are
indued with divine grace can perform in the name of another that which is
due to God. Whence it happens that in one sense one man is found to bear
another’s burden.”
{31} 1 Pet iii. 18.
{35a} “Præterea est purgatorius ignis, quo piorum animæ ad definitum
tempus cruciatæ expiantur, ut eis in æternam patriam ingressus patere
possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur.” Part I. Art. v. §§ 5.
{35b} This is sometimes denied, when men wish to recommend the doctrine
to Protestants, but it stands written in the book. “Purgatorius ignis.”
{36a} Large sums are left in legacy, and paid by surviving friends, in
order that masses may be said for souls in purgatory.
{36b} Catm. part I, Art. v. § 5.
{37} 1 Pet. iv. 12.
{40a} Rev. iv. 8.
{40b} Luke xvi. 22.
{41a} Acts vii. 55.
{41b} Phil. i. 23.
{42} Phil. i. 21.
{44} Psalm xxiii. 4.
{47} “Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam, cuilibet peccatori
pænitenti ita culpam remitti, ut reatum æternæ pœnæ deleri dixerit, ut
nullus remaneat reatus pænæ temporalis exsolvendæ vel in hoc Sœculo, vel
in futuro in Purgatorio, antequam ad regna cælorum aditus patere possit;
anathema sit.”—Trent Sess. vi. Can. 30.
I never could understand how the Church of Rome reconciles this decree
with its doctrine of extreme unction. The Council of Trent decrees,
Sess. xiv., Extreme Unction, Chap. 2, “The matter of the Sacrament is the
grace of the Holy Spirit, whose unction blots out all such offences, and
remains of sin, as still require expiation.” “Cujus unctio delicta, si
quæ sint adhuc expianda, ac peccati reliquias abstergit.” If this be
true, what sins remain for expiation in purgatory? What can be the use
of masses for the dead? Surely the priests of the Church of Rome cannot
believe their own decree; for if they did, it would be nothing short of
robbery to receive fees for extricating souls from purgatory. They are
already free through extreme unction.
{49} How miserable is the confidence of a poor dying Roman Catholic! He
trembles at the thought of purgatorial fire, and leaves money to the
priest that masses may be said for his release. If the priest happen to
forget him, in purgatory he must remain. Nay, more! If the masses are
offered they may be worthless, for the Church of Rome declares the
intention of the priest to be necessary to a sacrament. Trent, Sess.
vii., Can. 11. “If any man shall say that the intention of doing that
which the church does is not required in ministers while they perform and
confer the sacrament, let him be accursed.” The priest, therefore, may
perform all the masses, and get all the money, and yet if his intention
happen to be wanting the poor soul would profit nothing. This places the
soul in purgatory at the absolute mercy of the priest on earth. The Rev.
James Page, in his “Letters to a Priest of the Church of Rome,” gives the
following passage from the “Master Key of Popery,” written by D. Antonio
Gavin, in which he, who was himself a priest, gives an extract from the
private confession of a priest, being at the point of death, in 1710.
“The necessary intention of a priest, in the administration of baptism
and consecration, without which the sacraments are of none effect, I
confess I had it not several times, as you shall see in the parish books;
and observe there, that all those marked with a star, the baptism was not
valid, for I had no intention; and for this I can give no other reason
than my malice and wickedness; many of them are dead, for which I am
heartily sorry. As for the times I have consecrated without intention,
we must leave it to God Almighty’s mercy for the wrong done by it to the
souls of my parishioners, and those in purgatory cannot be helped.” Oh!
that we could persuade our poor Roman Catholic brethren to trust at once
to the great High Priest, who blotteth out all sin by his own most
precious blood!
{52} Mal. ii. 2.
{53a} Psalm lxix. 22.
{53b} Sess. xiii. De Eucharistia, Section 4, “Sancta hæc synodus
declarat per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius
substantiæ panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius
substantiæ vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus.”
{53c} Catm. Part ii. De Eucharistia, Sec. 32, “A pastoribus explicandum
est non solum verum Christi corpus, et quidquid ad veram corporis
rationem pertinet, velut ossa et nervos, sed etiam totum Christum in hoc
sacramento contineri.”
{53d} Sess. xiii. Canon 1, “Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimæ
eucharistiæ sacramento contineri veré, realiter et substantialiter corpus
et sanguinem unà cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac
proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodò esse in eo, ut in signo,
vel figura, aut virtute; anathema sit.”
{54} Sees. xiii. Can. 6, “Si quis dixerit, in Sancto Eucharistiæ
Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu Latriæ etiam
externo, adorandum: atque ideò nec festivâ peculiari celebritate
venerandum, neque in processionibus, secundùm laudabilem et universalem
Ecclesia Sancta ritum et consuetudinem, solemniter circumgestandum, vel
non publicè, ut adoretur, populo proponendum, et ejus adoratores esse
idololatres; anathema sit.”
{55a} Sess. xxii. 2, “In divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur,
idem ille Christus continetur, et incruentê immolatur, qui in ara crucis
simul seipsum cruentè obtulit.”
{55b} Sess. xxii. Can. 3, “Si quis dixerit, missa sacrificium tantum
esse laudis, et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii
in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, vel soli prodesse sumenti;
neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, pœnis, satisfactionibus et
aliis necessitatibus, offerri debere; anathema sit.”
{56} Isa. xliv. 16, 17.
{57} Art. 31.
{58a} Art. 28. “The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the
supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean
whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is faith.”
{58b} Dr. Cumming states that there are no less than 37 passages in the
Bible in which there is a similar form of expression. Lectures, p. 147.
{61} The words would not prove the doctrine of the Church of Rome, even
if the soul and divinity were not added as they are. The utmost that
could possibly be proved from them is, that the bread was his body, and
the wine his blood. There is not a hint at the doctrine that the wafer
_alone_ is a whole Christ, including both body and blood. Indeed the
addition of the words “This is my blood,” distinctly proves the contrary,
it shows that both were not united in one. To avoid this obvious
conclusion is, I suspect, the reason why the cup is withheld from the
laity.
{62} The Council of Trent appears conscious of this absence of all
scriptural authority, for in its decree respecting the adoration of the
wafer it appeals to tradition only. “Pro more in Catholica ecclesia
semper recepto.” Sess. xiii. 5.
{63} If the intention of the Priest be wanting, then, according to the
principles of the Church of Rome, all the worshippers of the Host must be
idolaters, for according to their own Canon, (See page 49,) without his
secret intention no change takes place. In such cases, therefore, the
bread remains bread, according to their own doctrine; and to worship it
with latria (the honour due to God) is manifest idolatry.
{64a} Rev. i. 18.
{64b} John xvi. 7.
{65a} Acts i. 11.
{65b} Acts iii. 21.
{71a} Rev. i. 1.
{71b} Matt. xxiv. 33.
{72} Luke xxi. 25–27.
{73} Mark xiii. 7.
{76a} 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not
come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his
time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of
his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power
and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie.
{76b} ἡ ἁποστασία.
{77} See also Eph. ii. 20–22.
{78} Tertullian, who lived in the second century, says of the letting
power, “Who can this be but the Roman state? the division of which into
ten kingdoms will bring on Antichrist, and then the wicked one shall be
revealed.” De resurrect. carnis, c. 24. And in his Apology, “There is
especial necessity that we should pray for the emperors, the empire, and
the general prosperity of Rome, for we know that a mighty power
threatening the whole world and the end of the world itself, is kept back
by the intervention of the Roman empire.”—Apol. c. 32. Cyril says, “This
the predicted Antichrist will come when the times of the Roman empire
shall be fulfilled, and the consummation of the world shall approach.
Ten kings of the Romans shall arise together, in different places indeed,
but they shall reign at the same time; among these the eleventh is
Antichrist who by magical and wicked artifice shall seize the Roman
power.” Catech. 15, c. 5. See Newton on the Prophecies.
{80} Verse 9.
{81} E.G. The exaltation of human tradition, Coloss. ii. 8, “Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ.” The doctrine of justification by works, to overthrow which is
the single object of the Epistle to the Galatians. Worshipping angels
and professing to be wise above that which is written. Coloss. ii. 18,
“Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and
worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not
seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, Making religion consist in
forms that can never satisfy.” Coloss. ii. 20–23. Exaltation of the
priesthood, 1 Pet. v. 3, “Neither as being lords of God’s heritage, but
being ensamples to the flock.”
{83} Remember especially the doctrine of intention (page 49.) If in the
consecration the priest think proper to withhold his intention, then the
wafer remains a wafer, and no change takes place. If the priest think
fit to will it, then the wafer is the very person, body, nerves, soul,
and divinity, of our living and reigning Lord. The creation of the
Saviour is therefore made dependent upon the uncontrolled will of the
priest. What is this but to exalt himself above all that is called God
or that is worshipped?
{84} These blasphemous titles were not only given to the Pope by the
flattery of orators, but with the acts of the Council were afterwards
published by papal authority. At the inauguration of the Pope he sits
upon the high altar in St. Peter’s church, making the table of the Lord
his footstool, and in that position receives adoration from the people.
The following language was addressed to him in 4th Session of the Lateran
Council: “Our Lord God the Pope; another God upon earth; king of kings,
and lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the Pope. To
believe that our Lord God the Pope might not decree, as he has decreed,
were a matter of heresy. The power of the Pope is greater than all
created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestial, and
infernal. The Pope doeth whatsoever things he listeth, even things
unlawful, and is more than God (et est plus quam Deus).” See Newton on
the Prophecies.
{85} Matt. xxiv. 24.
{86a} Verse 17.
{86b} It is remarkable that these unclean spirits appear to aim at
political influence more than at personal persuasion. “They go forth to
the kings.” The prophecy therefore prepares us for a time when
governments shall support popery in opposition to the feelings of the
people.
{89a} μάρτυρες.
{89b} Rev. xx. 4.
{96} In his controversy with Mr. Venn, Mr. Waterworth alluded to this
injunction as a repeal of the 4th Rule. In this he was at variance with
the Pope, for his Holiness says it was an addition to it.