Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

thority of the holy sec, which, in a Papist's esteem, is the same thing as rebellion against God.

On the other hand, if the true and Catholic doctrine be, that a decree of the pope "is not to be considered as infallibly certain, till the body of bishops receive it, either by their express approbation, or by their tacit submission to it," then, those who receive such decrees on the authority of the pope alone, and obey them, are guilty of contemning the whole "body of bishops," and setting at nought their authority, though it be admitted that they are the same as the whole church. This must be a very grievous error; for it is maintained, that their sentence, being that of the whole church, is undoubtedly infallible. The infallibility of the pope alone is not so undoubted, for there are some who deny it; therefore, those who believe in it, and act upon it, must be in a most dangerous condition; I might even call it damnable, if I were to adopt the language of the holy council of Trent.

Again, if no decree of the pope is to be considered infallible, or to be received with a divine faith, till the "body of bishops," meaning, I suppose, all the bishops in the world, receive it by their express approbation, or tacit submission, then it may be a hundred years, and more, after a decree is emitted by his holiness, ere it can be lawfully received by his spiritual children; for they may not, during all that time, have received sufficient evidence, that the "body of bishops," in all parts of the world, have approved of such decree. It is some hundreds of years since the pope pretended to be infallible, as he ought most certainly to be, if he be Christ's vicar, and head of the church; but it seems, at this very day, the "body of bishops" are not agreed about it; and what confidence then can the people, in general have in it? The truth is, Papists are trusting in a broken reed, that will do more than disappoint them in the day of trial. It will pierce and wound every hand that leans upon it.

Bishop Hay, as I have said, seems inclined to adopt the opinion of those, who think that "the pope himself, when he speaks to all the faithful, as head of the church, is infallible in what he teaches;" and he says, that for this opinion there are "several very strong reasons, both from scripture, tradition, and reason." He introduces his proof from scripture as follows: "Because this privilege of the particular direction and assistance of God, in teaching true doctrine, was given to the high priest of the old law, and the synagogue being only a figure of the law of grace, and of the church of Christ, the same privilege must certainly be given to the high priest of the church also, otherwise the figure would have been more perfect than the thing figured, the shadow more privileged than the substance." I do most readily grant, that the same, and greater privilege, is granted to the high priest of the church under the law of grace, as the bishop calls it, though I believe what he calls the old law, was as really a law of grace as the new. But the question will occur, who is the high priest, of whom the high priest of the old law was a figure? the bishop will have it to be the pope of Rome; and because the high priest of the Jews was infallible in what he announced as the mind of God, (which, however, may reasonably be doubted,) therefore the pope of Rome is infallible in all his decrees. This is popish episcopal logic of the highest order; and if all men are not thereby persuaded to fall down and worship

the pope as the great high priest of the Christian profession, the guilt of disobedience must rest upon their own heads.

Now it appears evidently from the New Testament, that the high priest of our profession, of whom Aaron and his sons were a figure, is no other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; (Heb. iii. 1, 2.) and that he is infallible there can be no doubt among Christians; but to ascribe this office, and this infallibility, to the pope of Rome, is such an instance of impiety and presumption, as we shall search for in vain, except in the writings of such men as Bishop Hay, who are determined, at all hazards, to support the usurpation of him who sitteth in the temple of God, and who exalteth himself above all that is called God, and that is worshipped.

The other scripture proofs relate to Peter, as the rock on which the church is built; and Christ's words to Peter, "I have prayed for thee," &c., which I have already considered. The proofs from tradition, are the mere ravings of ghostly fathers, whose authority is not the weight of a straw, in relation to a matter that ought to rest upon divine authority, if it is to command the faith of Christians. The proofs from reason are partly as follow, for I have not room for them all; but such as I give will afford as fair a specimen of popish lying and impudence as any man could wish to see.

"The proofs from reason," says Bishop Hay, "are founded on facts, and on principles received by all members of the church as divine truths; for, (1) There never was an instance of any pope who proposed any doctrine to be believed by the church, that was contrary to the sacred truths of faith revealed by Christ; for, though there have been a few, and only a few popes, that were bad men in their own practice, yet the most inveterate adversaries of the Catholic faith could never yet show that any pope taught bad doctrine. (2) Never yet did any pope emit any decree concerning the truths of faith or sound morality, but was received by the great body of the bishops, as containing the most solid and wholesome doctrine. (3) Many different heresies that have arisen in different ages in the church, have been proscribed and condemned by the authority of the head of the church alone, both before the first general council was held, and since. (4) In all controversies of moment that have arisen in the church about points of faith, the bishops have always had recourse to the head of the church, as the supreme tribunal for settling them; and, if the obstinacy of the party condemned by him made it advisable to have recourse to general councils, these councils never were found to do any thing else, after the most mature examination, but to confirm the sentence already passed by the head."-Sincere Christian, &c., chap. xii.

I question if there was ever so much downright falsehood contained in so small a space, as in the first of these four particulars which Bishop Hay gives as facts. It is false, that no pope ever yet taught bad doctrine; for, not to speak of others, the creed of Pope Pius IV., as we shall see by and by, is error and nonsense throughout. It is false, that only a few popes were men of bad lives, for very many of them were monsters of wickedness. This must have been very well known by Bishop Hay, unless, indeed, his moral perceptions and feelings, like those of other Papists, were so depraved, that the grossest wickedness practised by great ecclesiastics, did not make them, in his esteem, "bad

men in their own practice." He must have known, that very many of the popes were habitually guilty of such crimes as would have entitled them to the appellation of bad men among the virtuous part of the com munity. He cannot, therefore, be acquitted of the crime of writing a falsehood, knowing it to be such. I request the reader not to take this sweeping accusation against the holy fathers of Rome upon my bare word, for I admit, that standing alone, it is of no more authority than that of the bishop. But let him read attentively the most respectable ecclesiastical histories, even those written by Papists, and he will find that the assertions of Bishop Hay are directly opposed to truth. That "the body of the bishops" received the decrees of the pope, and that they appealed to him as head of the church, are matters of no importance, for after they had become dependent upon him, as they all were, when their election was declared invalid without his confirmation, they would readily lick up any thing that he was pleased to "emit."

But suppose I were to admit the fact, that the popes never taught bad doctrine, and, that very few of them led wicked lives, this would not prove the pope to be infallible; because the same thing may be affirmed of hundreds and thousands who never made so high a claim. Yes, in the churches of England and Scotland, and among dissenters of different names, there are many pastors who cannot justly be accused of teaching error, or leading wicked lives; but it would require a logician like Bishop Hay, to prove them all infallible.

In opposition to Bishop Hay's assertion, that "the most inveterate adversaries of the Catholic faith could never yet show that any pope ever taught bad doctrine," it might be enough to assert, that every enemy of popery, that ever lifted a tongue or a pen, has most abundantly shown this very thing. Every pope has taught bad doctrine, and nothing else, ever since he began to teach that he was head of the church, and the vicar of Christ. Pope Pius IV.; whom I have already mentioned, was at the pains to draw up, or order to be drawn up, a digest of the errors of the church of Rome, which had accumulated by his time; he proposed them to be believed by all the faithful as infallible truths; and they are at this day received and held by all sound Papists, as of equal authority with the word of God. As I think this document ought to be generally known, in order to show what bad doctrine the pope teaches, I shall give it here entire.

"I most firmly receive and embrace the apostolical and ecclesiasti cal traditions, and the rest of the observances and constitutions of the church.

"I do also receive the holy scriptures in the same sense that holy mother church does, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of them; neither will I receive nor interpret them otherwise, than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

"I do likewise profess, that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; and that they are necessary to the salvation of mankind, though not all of them to every one, namely, baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders, may not be repeated without sacrilege. I do also receive and admit the received

and approved rites of the Catholic church, in the solemn administration of the abovesaid sacraments.

"I do embrace and receive all and every thing that hath been defined and declared by the holy council of Trent, concerning original sin and justification.

"I do in like manner profess, that in mass is offered a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead, and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is a change made of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of wine into the blood, which change the Catholic church calls transubstantiation.

"I believe also, that under one kind only, a whole and entire Christ, and a true sacrament, is taken.

"I do firmly maintain that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained, are relieved by the prayers of the faithful.

"I do likewise believe, that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be worshipped and prayed unto, and that they do offer up prayers for us, and that their relics are to be worshipped.

"I do most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of God, always a virgin, and of the other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them. "I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is very beneficial to Christian people. "I do acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic, Roman church, to be the mother and mistress of all churches, and do promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.

"I do also, without any doubt, receive and profess all other things which have been delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred canons and general councils, and especially by the holy council of Trent: and all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church, I do likewise condemn, reject and anathematize."

To make the matter as sure as possible, an oath is subjoined to the above creed, to be taken by all the clergy. Having made profession of their faith, they add, "This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man can he saved, and which at this time I freely confess and truly embrace; and I will take care, by the help of God, that the same be retained and firmly professed, whole and inviolate, as long as I live, and as much as in me lies; that it be held, taught, and preached, by all those that are under my power, and by such as I shall have charge over in my profession, thus I, N. N. do promise, vow, and swear; so help me God, and these his holy gospels."

Such is the famous creed of Pope Pius IV., which is understood to express the whole faith of a Papist, in addition to the twelve articles in what is commonly called the apostles' creed. It is made the basis of several catechisms, which are in my possession. The above is a translation of it, as given by Mr. Bennett in his Memorial of the Reformation, 2d edit. chap. i. I have given it at length, not for the purpose of making an exposure of its errors at present, as I have exposed most,

of them already; but for the purpose of exposing the impudence of such writers as Bishop Hay, who assert that no enemy of popery could ever yet show that any pope ever taught bad doctrine. It may safely be left in the hands of any child who can read the Bible with understanding; and I have no doubt that any such child would soon perceive its doctrine to be bad in the extreme.

On this creed, and the solemn oath with which it is swallowed, I only remark farther at present, that it binds every Romish priest to believe both parts of a contradiction, and to abstain from every attempt to understand the word of God. He swears to believe all that has been delivered by general councils, especially the council of Trent; and that he will never receive or interpret the holy scriptures otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. Such unanimous consent never existed, and when a priest swears that he will never receive the scriptures otherwise, it is the same as to swear that he will never receive them at all; and from the manner in which some of the priests speak and write of the Bible, we may charitably believe that they are true to their oath. Besides, it is well known that there are many contradictions in the decrees, canons, and definitions of general councils. How then can a man swear to receive and obey them all, without an absolute surrender of his reason and his conscience? I know that Papists think very lightly of surrendering their reason, for it is what they do openly and avowedly every day, when they worship a piece of bread as the God that made them. But they do not yet so explicitly surrender their conscience; though it is virtually done by their avowal of implicit belief that a thing is and is not at the same time; or, for instance, that the pope is above a council, and that a council is above the pope, are both true.

CHAPTER CVI.

THE POPE'S EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FRENCH EMPEROR.

SATURDAY, July 22d, 1820. THE infallibility of the pope does not imply foreknowledge, which is one reason why the holy father commits so many blunders, both in his teaching and administration. It is in the recollection of many of my readers, that, about twenty years ago, the pope blessed Bonaparte as his dear son in the faith, and even consented to set the imperial crown on his head. The holy father seemed even to glory in this dear son, as if he had been another Elijah, who had restored the true religion, after it had been subverted by the Jezebel goddess of reason. But the father did not foresee the future perversity of this son; and that the dignity and power, to which he had contributed to raise him, would be employed against himself. Such, however, turned out to be the case. Bonaparte was as great an oppressor of the holy see, as the king of the Lombards had been. It does not, however, appear that the present pope had so much interest in heaven as his predecessor Stephen had; or, that the Virgin Mary and St. Peter interposed on his behalf, either by word or writing. Indeed, so far as appears, he might have been calling upon these for help till this day, and with as much earnestness as the priests VOL. II-2

« VorigeDoorgaan »