IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) &^ {./ A Z f/. 1.0 1.1 Ui|2£ 12.5 15.0 ^^^ IMJH^B *■ I. ■tuu 1.8 1.25 1 1.4 1.6 •« 6" ► % °/ % ^^,^J^ °J> / 7 y^ Photographic Sciences Corporation \ S^ •SJ «b 6^ 23 WESY MAIN ST«!EET WEGS7r;K,N.Y. 14580 (ru^) 372-4503 1/2 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie at/ou pelliculAe r~n Cover title missing/ La titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encra de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noirel n~| Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avoc d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion la long da la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted' from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibli&graphique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restauries et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquies Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ inigale de {'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule idition disponible r~| Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ Fy] Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ r~~| Pages detached/ r~7| Showthrough/ pn Quality of print varies/ pn Includes supplementary material/ pn Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont iti filmies i nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X aox J 12X wt aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« hM ba«n raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Library of Parliament and ttie National Library of Canada. L'axomplaJra filmA fut raproduit grica k la giniroaitA da: La BibliotMqua du Parlantent et la BibliotMqua nationala du Canada. Tha imagaa appaaring haro ara tha baat quality poaalbia conaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming oontract spacificationa. Original eopiaa in printad papar covars ara fllmad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or iiluatratad impraa- sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. Ail othar original eopiaa ara filmad waginning on tha firat paga with a printad or iiluatratad Improa- sion. and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or iiluatratad impraaaion. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol ««» (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), whichavar appiiaa. i.aa imagaa auhrantaa ont 4ti raproduitaa avac la piua grand aoin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da I'axamplaira fllmA, at an conformitA avac laa condltiom du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprimte sont fllmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la damlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou dllluatradon. soit par la sacond plat, salon la eaa. Toua laa autraa axamplairaa originaux sont filmia an commandant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta dimpraaaion ou dllluatration at wx tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un daa aymboiea suivanta apparaltra ^ur la damlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, salon la caa: la symbola -^> signlfia "A SUIVRE". la aymbola ▼ signlfia "FIN". Mapa, plataa, charts, ate., may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoae too lerge to be entirely included in one expoeure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framee aa required. The following diagrama illuatrate tha method: l.ee cartee, pianchee. tabiaeux. etc.. peuvent Atre fllmte i dee taux de reduction diffirents. LArsque la document eat trop grand pour 4tre reproduit en un soul clichA. il est fllmA A partir da I'angia aupAriaur gauche, de gauche h droite. et de haut w* bee, mt prenant la nombre d'Imegee nAceaaaira. Laa diagrammae suivanta illuatrant la mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 6- Wfmammm^^ I' PAPAL INFALLIBILITY, AS SEEN STATED AND DEFENDED BY Rev. M. J. FERGUSON, Vvofessor of St. Michael's College, Toronto; » AND AS SEEN ' IN THE LiaST OP REVELATION, EXAMINED AND EXHIBITED BY WILLIAM A. STEPHENS, Author of " Hamilton and other Poems and Lectures," &o., Owen Sound. OWEN SOUND: John Rutherford, General Book and Job Printer. 1871. '¥' ^■■•^iPBBHBHVai^ mmm A ^ V * INTROnVCTION. ■ «•> I The reason of this controversy was, as will be seen, a Lecture de- livered according to announcement, by Father Ferguson, in the Town -V } V Hall, Owen Sound, which was reported in its main points, in the Owen Sound Titne« of February 10th, 1871. This was followed in the next number by a Letter from Mr. Stephens, in which he referred to the passage, "I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," and showed by a logical amplification of those words, what is claimed by the Pope in consequence of claiming possession of those ^eys; and to this Letter was appended a copy of the (Jurse of Ex- communication against Victor Emmanuel. The next paper (February 23rd) contained a poem under the caption, "How Peter used the Keys of the Kingdom;" and also, a Letter from Mr. G. Spencer, a la'^« convert to Catholicism, in reply to Mr. Stephens' first Letter. The next Times (March 3rd) had Mr. Ferguson's first Letter in reply to Mr. Stephens. The next number (March 10th) contained Mr. t Ferguson's second Letter, and Mr. Stephens' Letter in reply to Mr. Spencer; and in the following numbers of the Times, three Letters from Mr. Stephens, in reply to the two Letters from Mr. Ferguson, which ended the discussion, so far as it was published in that paper. But it was taken up editorially in the Canadian Freeman of Toronto, in two lengthy articles, which are given in this Pamphlet, as they are evidently from the pen of Mr. Ferguson. But before these articles had appeared, Mr. Stephens had continued his argument upon the general subject, which continuation is now published for the first time, as also his remarks upon those Editorials. From the very great interest this correspondence excited during its Y ' \ publication in the Times, and from the opinion exprei^aed by many J that if it were completed and given in pamphlet form, it would com- I mand a very wide circulation and be the means of doing much good, Mr. Stephens resolved to try the experiment of publishing in this form; and trusts, with the blessing of God, that it may aid some at least, of the lovers of truth, to understand it better, and furnish them with arguments to defend it. OwBN Sound, Ist July, 1871. i f I3>TF-A.3LIL.IBXi:.IT'^5r, 9 f LECTURE BY THE REV. MR. FERGUSON, As Reported in "The Owen Sound Times" of February 10, 1871. In accordance with announcement, Rev. M. J. Ferguson, Professor in St. Michael's College, Toronto, lectured in the Town Hall on Monday- evening last, on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The audience numbered about five hundred; and the Lecturer (who is a fluent and eloquent speaker,) was listened to with great attention throughout. We give a short sketch of the main points touched upon. The Lecturer commenced by stating that he did not intend to treat the subject from a controversial point, but simply to state the doctrine as Roman Catholics hold it, and give the reasons why they did so. A great deal of superficial theology is talked in these days by people who know very little about the subjects they are discussing, and especially- had this been the case with the dogma of Infallibility. A great many of the newspapers had taken it up and condemned it. It was nothing to them that eight or nine hundred men, most of them of mature years, and able theologians, had, after deliberation, given their assent to it • — they unhesitatingly pronounced it ridiculous; the Pope was a poor old man, a good oH man, but this was making a God of him. This doctrine is believed in by two or three hundred millions of Catholics. Such clear-headed and able men as Von Moltke and Lord Napier are firm believers in it. Of course this is no proof that the dogma is true, but it is a reason why a modest man should treat the subject with respect when it comes before him in controversy, and admit that it may possibly be true. The doctrine as held by Roman Catholics is simply this : That the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. P6ter, and through that, Primate of the Church, is preserved in his official capacity from error, so long, and only so long, as he is propounding a doctrine to the whole Christian world. It simply means that God has granted that one man ia pre- served from error in his doctrinal capacity. And why may not that be true ? We know that God works by means which we woUld con- sider insignificant. When the blind man came to our Saviour, He made use of such an humble instrument as clay to restore his sight. So in baptismal regeneration; we know that the water does not touch the soul, yet God makes use of it as the means by which regeneration is communicated. There is nothing therefore strange in supposing that He might make one man head of the Church, and in order that he may be fitted for the position, give him the gift of infallibility. The probability of this becomes stronger when we know that the chief pontiff of the Jewish Church was preserved from doctrinal error, and that under circumstances which showed that his personal character had nothing to do with it. When our Saviour was brought into his presence to have sentence j)ronounced against Him, then, if ever. might the gift have been withdrawn; but even when contemplating tiwch a crime he was saved from doctrinal error, and uttered a prophecy which was true — that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And we are expressly told that, this he said, not of him« self, but because he was High Priest that year, and did prophesy. In stating these things we are merely settmg forth our view, and leaving the controversial proofs to those who desire to go into such things. We claim that the Pontiffs of the Jewish Church were en- dowed with freedom from docrinal error; and there is nothing strange in believing that to that purer Church which our Saviour instituted, a like power should be given. We know that Christ instituted a Church, and that it cannot go wrong; for He said that on this Rock He would build His Church, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. To those whom He constituted the heads of that Church, He granted the power — neither more nor less than what He brought Himself — "As my Father sent me, so send I you." This is a tre- mendous thought, that to weak, sinful man such power should be communicated; but it is not for us to dispute what Christ says. We hold that to the Church was delegated that very omnipotence which Christ brought to earth — that in fact it is the continuance of His presence amongst us. Because we know tiiat no man is capable of himself of understanding spii'itual things, we look that Christ should be with and guide those to whom He has given the commission to teach. At the creation, when man was formed, the body was first made, but it was not fitted for the work for which it was destined till God breathed into its nostrils the breath of life — so when Christ had taken sinners and built them into His body, the Church, they were not capable of performing the work assigned them until He had breathed upon them a higher spirit. Until that had taken place, they were as incapable as any other twelve men; but as soon as that took place they became as it were of a higher nature, and taught not of themselves, but by the Holy Ghost which was in them; and the^ promise was that He would be with them always, even unto the end oi the world. We hold that the Spirit descended on the day of Pentt- cost, not merely for the personal sanctification of the apostles, but to fit them for their work; and that that sustainment is as operative now as i;^ was then, because it was promised unto the end of the world. We hold (because we know they appointed them,) that that Spirit is still with their successors, and will be while there is a creature upon the earth to whom the gospel has to be preached. Our body changes so that every seven years it is completely renewed, but we are still the same men. The Apostles are dead, Popes die, and Bishops die; but their deaths no more change the nature of that Church which Christ instituted than does the change of the body change the man — that is the doctrine of Infallibility. The hand by writing can com- municate impressions in a certain sense spiritual on those around, yet we know that not in the fingers lies this power, but in the spirit which controls; so infallibility is not in the person, but in the spirit which dwells in him. The doctrine of Infallibility is that when it acts in its corporate capacity — the Church becomes, not so many mere men, but the Holy Spirit speaking to men, and therefore infal- lible ; because we do not wish to be guilty of the blasphemy of thinking the Spirit could speak that which is not true. When Christ, having become incarnate, found the time approaching " 1 II i i ^ J when He wm ■ummoned back, He said, I will make a Church, build it on a Hock, and give it power, that the gates of hell shall not pre- vail against it. Christ said it, and we believe it, and that it continues; and will any one call us names and charge us with elevating the crea- ture above the iX)8ition he should occupy, because we do so] We believe the Holy Ghost resides in the Church — that is the infallibility of the Church; and having said that, we have the infallibility of the Pope; for they are one and the same thing. We cannot conceive of a boay without a head. The Church is the body of Christ. It may be said He is the head; but Ha is the spiritual, not the visible head, and as the body is visible, it must have a visible head. We hold that St. Peter was appointed as that head, for Christ said to him, "On thitf rock will I build my Church," and ** I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom." Putting away the reference to the rock, about which there is controversy, the promise to give to him the Keys of the Kingdom was made in the singular number, and could refer to none other but Peter. The keys we all know to be the symbol of auhhority, and in olden times when a city was conquered it was customary for the chief magistrate to march out and give up the keys, symbolical of his authority to the conqueror. Peter may not have been any more distinguished or better tl..an the other apostles, but it was necessary that authority should be ge given to some one, and to him it was given. To him Christ also said, "Feed my lambs," and '* Feed my sheep;" and the only explanation which can be given of this, is that it refers to the whole people of God. To other apostles was given the power to hear confessions — " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- mitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained" — but to Peter alone was given the commandment to feed His sheep. And if Christ gave him a commandment to feed His sheep. He must have given him power to discriminate between truth and error, so that he might be able to feed them with the truth — in fact, given to him the power of infallibility. Suppose a father should go away from home, leaving his children in the care of a servant, giving him command to feed them, at the same time leaving poisonous with the good bread, and not telling the servant how to discriminate between them, what would be thought of him? And would we not be accusing Christ of the like if we believed that He gave Peter command to feed, without giving him power to discriminate between truth and error 1 In the present lecture, it was not the intention to deal with con- troversy; but it was necessary to meet one or two objections. A great many people thought the dogma of Infallibility held that the Pope could not sin ; but there could not be a greater mistake than to confound impeccability with Infallibility — one is a matter of the will, the other of the intellect; and we know from actual experience that the will can go wrong when the judgment is right. The Lecturer knew an instance of a physician whose friends had to shut him up for several days when they wanted his advice; but his intellect was strong and clear, and his judgment on medical matters well nigh infallible. It is a common thing to find men intellectually clever who are morally bad; and while we contend that the Pope is doctrinally infallible, we do not claim that he has immunity from sin — in fact, we know that he goea to confession as regularly as the humblest pried. It is made an argument against infallibility that Peter denied his Master; but then it must be remembered that the Holy Spirit waa not given until the day of Pentecost, and consequently the apostles were not inspired till that time. Then we are told of the great schisni in the middle ages, when there were three claimants to the pontifical chair, who excommunicated each other, and wo are asked, Where was Infallibility then. If two diflerent Councils should happen to bo elected for a town, and sit in adjoining rooms annulling what each other did, would all municipal power necessarily lapse ( We know that power to execute the laws must still remain somewhere, and that one of them must have been the proper Council, though we could not distinguish which. So when these men contended against each other, one must still have been the rightful Pope. Their course was a grave scandal to the Church, and deeply to be deplored; but even then they did not contradict each other in doctrinal matters. Then we are told that the Pope condemned Galileo, which was not the case, for it was only a council of the Church which did so; and even if he had, it would be no proof against Infallibilty, for he is not necessarily an astronomer, and it is only when enunciating religious doctrine, that he is preserved from error. Is the doctrine not consistent? If God did appoint one man to be the head of the church, and to feed it with doctriunl truth, would you say He had not the right or the power ? And He instituted the means by which this was to be done — the Spirit of Truth. So Pio Nono, iis the successor of St. Peter, although a jjoor feeble old man, yet thro\igh that Spirit is preserved from doctrinal error. The decision of the Council did not make the dogma; but the dogma made t}ie decision, which was simply to embody it in so many words to be more convenient. We are told that Infallibility has not preserved the Pope from re- verses, but that is simply in accordance with the uhole course of his- tory. For the first three hundred years, to become Bishop of Home was to become a martyr; and of the two hundred and sixty-two Popes who have reigned, nearly all have lived lives suljject to persecu- tion. Though it grieves us to see the kind, genial old man deprived in his old age of the comforts to which he is entitled, yet even if he was put to death, it would not alter the fact of his infallibility. History tells us how Napoleon the Great treated the Pope, but chas- tisement came upon him, and his power was broken in the Russian campaign. His nephew withdrew his troops from Rome, saying that was his answer to Infallibility; and in tliree weeks after his empire was broken, and he had not a soldier that he could "'ithdraw from anywhere. The Papacy has stood the test of over a i,iiousand years, and has an element of strength in it which will cause it to survive all the storms which burst upon it. The Lecturer had been careful to avoid controversy, and hoped he had got through without saying a word which could ofl[end any one. He concluded by ■ tribute to Canada, his native country, and hoped that we should be able in this countrj to throw aside animosities, and live in harmony and good will with each other. MR. STEPHENS' STRICTURES UPON THE FOREGOING LECTURE, IN "OWEN SOUND TIMES" OF FEBRUARY 17th. To the Editor of the Times: Sir, — I attended the Lecture of Rev. Mr. Ferguson, and read your i1 ▼ery fair and correct rejiort of the same in the laat iMtie of the Times. The Lecturer was Ixjth pleasant and plausible; but to rdiiials or Princes of the Church; and he shall claim and exercise at ihority, not only over all Christian congregations and communit.eb, but over kings and nations; and shall have the right to curse, px i>mm- < .licate -^mi cast out of the Church, and condemn, not only in ^our name, rimon, but i;. my ram.v and in that of the Father, and of tho B.tly Ghost, all who questiou his authority, whict he derives fror- you, and to conc''^!'nn them to everlasting torments: and to curse them in their oodies and their souls, in their head and their feet, evi m every part and portion of their being; and in order to enforce his authority ne shall enlist armies, and although I say ttow that my Kingdom is not of this world, else would mjj servants fight — ^your successor shall have power to say, ' My servants shall take the sword, and fight in defence of my Kingdom;' and although I say unto you, *Be not ye called Lord,' He shall have the power to say to his Bishops, * Yo may be called Lord;' and although I shall say, through the Holy Spirit in one of my apostles, that a Bishop shall be the husband of one wife, he shall have the right and the power to say that no Bishop shall have a wife ; and although I shall appoint bread and wine to be eaten and drunk by all my disciples in remembrance of Me, he shall have the power and the right to ordain that the elders and deacons only, whom he shall call priests, shall drink of the wine in remem- brance of Me — and the flock shall eat, not of a loaf that can be broken, but a small wafer, and tliis, he shall say, is the Lord's Supper. ** And he shall establish a Council, which he will call the Holy Inqui- sition, and he shall cause prisons and dungeons and instruments of torture to be made, and by these means he shall be able to purify the Church, by punishing those who will not have him to reign over them. " And he shall command the faithful everywhere, to pray to thee and to my other apostles, and especially to my mother — although, to one who cried out to me, * Blessed is t!«e womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked,' i answered, 'Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keer> it' — and shall crown her Queen of Heaven, and shall command ail the people to pray to her, telling them that she can hear them from all places of B 10 . the world at the same time, although she lost me, her son, once In Jerusalem^ and knew not where I was for three days; and he shall tell my sheep that she has more tender compassion for them than I have, although I lay down my life for their sakes; and although, in accordance with my injunction, you shall say to my disciples to Teed my sheep,' 'Fear Goi, and honour the king,' he shall have the power to curse the king; and although I shall say in my great commission, that I shall give to all you, my apostles: *6o into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;' he shall say, unless they believe also in his infallibUity, they shall be damned. " According to Mr. Ferguson, there are two hundred and fifty mil- lions of Catholics who believe that the words spoken to Peter, "I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and what thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven," conferred on the Pope of JRome the right and the power to do all this. Now, in the name of all who reverence the Word of God, I can't beliove it, nlthough this avowal bring me under the anathema of the P(»pe. I cannot believe it; but I believe with all intelligent Protes- tants, t at it repre('ent3 what John saw in the camera of Inspiration in the Isle of Patmos, "The woman, which is that great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth." Mr. Ferguson said, in his lecture, that the " Jewish Pontiffs," (moaning, of course, the High Priests,) were preserved from Doc- tiiual Error, and therefore he argues that the Roman Pontiffs are so. Does Mr. Ferguson forget, that the first High Priest said, after he had made the Golden Calf, "These are thy Gods, O Israeli" Was there no doctrinal err<>r here? And he also forgets that when Jesus said (Mark xiv. 62,) in answer to the High Priest, that He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, that the High Priest pronouced it Blasphemy, and he and all his Council condemned Him to be guilty of death! Was there wo doctiimd error here I! Was it not for this very confession, made by Peter, that the Saviour uttered those memor- able words, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in Heaven!" Mr. Ferguson shows plainly by this, that although he may be very well versed in the doctrines of the Papal Church, he is not so well versed in the Scriptures, and what he states on which to base what he seems to think one of his strongest arguments, I have shown from the Scriptures to be untrue. One of the sections of the Infallible dogma, as published by the Catholic World ior September, ends with these words, "If, there- fore, any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord himself, or by divine right, that blessed Peter has not perpetu- ated successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter, let him be anathema." And the dogma itself ends thus: "And if any one shall presume, which (iod forbid, to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema." That is, in plain English, " Let him be damned, and he is damned" — professing to speak with the same authority as the Loi'd God, who said, " Let there be light, and there was light." Now, it just comes to this, if the Pope is infallible, all Protestants and Christians who dispute the dogma, are in a state of damnation. And if ho i.s not iiifitllibk-, tlio Pope himself must be in a state of ^imw 11 damnation, as he lies in the name of the Holy Ghost. There is no possible escape from this. Either the Protestants or the Pope nmst be transfixed by one of the horns of this dilemma. I may here observe, that the Papal is the only ecclesiastical organi- zation, so far as I know, that publicly and solemnly, in the name of God, curses those who dispute its authority. Now, in taking the gloss off from Mr. Ferguson's shoddy, I am not influenced by any ill feeling towards the Catholics, for ever since the time of the great O'Connell's struggle for Catholic emancipation, I have been, hs was my father before me, opposed to any civil or political disqualification on account of any religious faith; and I am not now their enemy because I tell them what I believe to be the truth. Owen Sound, February 14, 1871. W. A. STEPHENS. P.S, — In order to show the character of Pope Pius, whom Mr. Ferguson called "that kind and genial old man, whom everybody loved," I shall ask you, Mr. Editor, to copy the following paternal address to Victor Emmanuel. And with your permission, I shall ^ve the readers of the Times, next week, a poem entitled "How Peter used the Keys of the Kingdom," which is now being published in my forthcoming book. The Anathema Maranatha, or Everlastitig Curse of the Roman Catholic Church, promulgated against Victor Emmanuel. "By the authority of the Almighty God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and of the holy canons; and of the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and nurse of our Saviour; and of the celestial virtues, angels, arch-angels, thrones, dominions, powers, cherubims and aeraphims; and of all tlie holy patriarchs and prophets; and of all the apostles and evangelists; and of the holy innocents (who in the sight of the Holy Lamb, are found worthy to sing the new song); and of the holy martyrs and holy confessors; and of the holy virgins; and of all the saints, together with all the holy and elect of God — we excom- municate and anathematize him, and from the threshold of the Holy Church of God Almighty we sequester liirn, that he may be tormented in eternal excruciating sufferings, together with Dathan and Abirani, and those who say to the Lord God, 'Depart from us; we desire none of Thy ways.' And as fire is quenched with water, so shall the light of him be put out forevermore. " May the Father, who created man, curse him. May the Son, who suffered for us, curse him. May the Holy Ghost, which was given to us in our baptism, curse him. May the Holy Cross, which Christ (for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies) ascended, curse him. May the Holy and Eternal Virgin Mary, Mother of God, curse him. May St. Michael, the advocate of holy souls, curse him. May all the angels and archangels,* principalities and powers, and all the heavenly airmies curse him. May St. John, the precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other Chi'ist's apostles, curse him. And may the rest of His disciples, and the four Evangelists (who by their preaching converted the universal world), and may the holy and wonderful company of martyrs and confessors (who by their holy works are found pleading to God Almighty) curse him. , ,^.,,.., , ^ „, , .,, ., . , , #*' I , ! ■ 111.11 II i fiF ^ rr i i 12 " May the choir of the Holy Virgins (who for the honour of Christ have despised the things of the world) damn him; may all the saints (who from the beginning of the world and everlasting ages are found to be beloved of God) damn him; may the heavens and the earth, and all the holy things remaining therein, damn him. " May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house or in the field, whether in the highway or the byway, whether in the wood or the water, or whether in the Church. May he be cursed in living, and in dying, in eatiiig and drinking, in fasting and thirsting, in slumbering and sleeping, in watching or walking, in standing or sitting, in lying down or working, mingendo, cacertdo, and in blood- letting. "May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body. May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly. May be be cursed in his hair. May he be cursed in his brains. May he be cursed in the crowii of his head and in his temples. In his forehead and in his ears. In eyebrows and in his cheeks. In his jawbones and in his nostrils, his foreteeth and in his grinders. In his lips and in his throat, his shoulders and in his wrists. In his arms, his hands, and in lingers. ''May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart, and in all the viscera of his body; may he be damned in his veins and in his groin, in his thighs and in his genital organs, in his hips and in his knees, in his legs, feet, and toe-nails. ''May he be cursed in all the joints and articulations of his mem- bers. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot may there be no soundness in him. "May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of His majesty, curse him; and may Heaven, with all the powers tliat move therein, rise up against him, curse and damn him! Amen. So be it. Amen" his In In his m » LETTER No. 2 OF MR. STEPHENS. (From "Owen Sound Times" of February 2Srd, 1871.^ i ,■-■., To the Editor of ihe Times: At the close of my remarks in your last issue, on the Infallibility Dogma, I stated my intention of giving your readers a poem from my book now in course of publication, with the title, "How Peter used the Keys of the Kingdom." In treating this subject, I have aimed to do so as seen from a New Testament standpoint, which is the only true authority in this matter. It may be thought by some that this is not a poetical subject. My own opinion is that almost any subject may be fit for poetry to one who is able to treat it fittingly. Whether or not I have succeeded in this instance, others mast judge j but I am satisfied that I have given truth supported by sound argument and legitimate illustration. ' Yours truly, W.A.Stephens. HOW PETER USED THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM. "The Keys of my Kingdom I give unto thee — What you bind upon earth, so in Heav'n shall be; i I J'^ 18 What you loose upon earth, shall in Heav'n be free." Those wonderful words, unto Peter, He spoke. Who holds the whole universe under His yoke; For Peter was first to confess, what all now As the chief comer-stone of salvation avow — That Jesus is Christ, and the Son of that God, Whose feet on the bounds of the boundless have trod; Whose life is Eternity^ and at a glance, Takes in all eternity and all expanse. "I will give thee the keys." And when were they given 1 And when did they open the kingdom of Heaven i Peter first used the keys on the Great Pentecost,^ When he opened the door to the first redeemed host; And he left the door open that Jewa of all times. Who believe in the Lord and repent of their crimes, And in Christ are *' baptised for remission of sin"t The kingdom of Heav'n may all enter in. But the Gentiles as yet, have no part in the grace — It only is opened to IsraeVa race. But a light to the Gentiles, Christ must be, as well As the glory and saviour of old Israel. So Peter while fasting, falls into a trance,!]: And sees altogether at one loathsome glance. All reptiles and beasts and all foul creeping things, And birds with carnivorous talons and wings. " Peter slay them and eat, and thine hunger allay." •'Not so for in this I'd the Law disobey; For all I see there, Moses says are unclean, And such in my mouth. Lord, there never has been." "What God has made clean, do thou not common call;" And straight back to heaven the Lord took them all — Cornelius has prayed, and his alms have been given; An angel has come with a message from Heaven, "Thy prayers and thine alms are recorded for thee; ., . Now send men to Joppa, and there by the sea You'll find Simon Peter, He'll come unto you, . ;! i, And then he will tell what thou oughtest to do. " Simon Peter has come, and perceives with surprise -, ' That men of all nations to life may arise; . „, , ^ Who fear the true God and righteousness do; /; And he speaks now to Gentile as first to the Jew. ; : .; He tells them of Christ and remission of sins; As he preaches the Gentiles' salvation begins. The Spirit comes down, as they hear of Christ's blood. And they speak with new tongues and magnify God. And Peter then saw he must open the door. To those, as he did to the Jews once before. ....... He again used the ke;'S, and the gate open flew — It is ever since open to Gentile and Jew. And at once, in accordance with Christ's sacred word, He said be *' baptised in the name of the Lord." Thus Peter alone had the right to each race To open the door of the kingdom of grcce. tf .V, I ' UH *Act8 ii. fActs ii. 38. {Acts x. 14 When this had been done, the apostles were all On a level and equal from Peter to Pa\il. "Christ is your master and all ye are brothers;* Let none of you then lord it over the others. " They sit on twelve thrones, no pre-eminence given To one more than any they're equal in Heaven . The Pope says that Peter was prince over all, And he, the successor of Peter men call The vicar of Christ and the head of the Church; > 'V > He wields both the spiritual sceptre and birch, ' ' And he tells us that he is infallibly strong. ' ; ;'. To fix for all nations the right and the wrong. >-' I'll mention some reasons why this cannot be. And ask him some questions, if not thought too free; < ' ' And if with these reasons he fairly can cope, ' ' ' I'll admit him to be a most clever old Pope. <■ History tells us that Peter was slain, crucifieH; i' Of the ttuelve that he was not the last one who died; . • And all will admit that at least there was one L- '' Who long survived Peter — the loved loving John. ' If the Pontiff's pretensions don't fade in the light, ' He was prince over John and ruled him of right ! ' . ' And is it not strange that the Lord should ignore The Pope His own Vicar who must have felt sore, To be 80 much slighted, for Christ came alone ' To see and commune with his old beloved John. If Peter were prince, and John his successor, The Pope must be greater and John must be lesser. Then why should John only receive revelations That look through all time and the future of nations? And Christ's mighty Vicar then reigning at Rome, Never noticed at all, unless as to comeW And again, I would ask, if St. Peter were Prince, A question to make the Pope's votaries wince : When the twelve had a strife, who should greatest be made,+ And this on the night when their Lord was betrayed. Why did not Christ tell them, to quiet the strife "I've made Peter Prince, I have crowned him for life; And when I depart, he my vicar shall be. And you all must submit unto him as to me." And at the great Council, the first and the lastj Ever held, till 'the age of Apostles was pass'd. Why did not St. Peter, instead of St. James, Deliver the sentence, deciding the claims Of those who insisted, "They must be inslaved To the law, or the Gentiles can never be saved." The Council accepted the sentence so fair From James y/ho presided^ tho' Peter was there! • And if Peter were chief, what assumption in Paul § To censure Christ's vicar, in presence of all; And not only so, but besides to record His censure and zeal in the work of the Lord, i» " Mi «: *Matt. xxiii. 8. fr^'ike xxii. 24. JActs iv. §Gal. ii. 11, 14. iiiif 15 V ■- And pronounce without favor hia stem condemnation, Of unstable Peter's weak dissimulation." If Peter's the Rock, as per Rt>nie'8 explanation, Hure Paul did not build upon such a foundation. And what if some Cardinal now should but dare To censure his master with such a bold air J Assumption like this would at once be put down. And the rebel would meet the whole Catholic frown, As condensed in the look of surprise and disdain From him who now o'er the great city doth reign!* Not so with good Peter, how meekly he took The stem, but much needed, and faithful rebuke; And years after this, in his letter to all The brethren, ho speaks of "belov'd brother Paul." 'Tis clear 'twas not known, or by Peter or people, That he had been made both foundation and steeple; For had he but known his position and pow'r. He soon would have made the bold Tarsian cow'r; For all who have pow'r always know and assert it — This truth is so plain that you can't controvert it; It has ever been so, in the Church and the State, And Army and Navy, since earliest date. King, Captain and Priest, Premier, Bishop and Czai', If you question their rank they are ready for war; And at once you will notice their countenance low'r, If you dare to resist their legitimate pow'r. And so it is plain neither Peter nor Paul Ever knew that the Lord had set one over all? . LETTER FROM MR. GEORGE SPENCER. ( From ''Owen Sound Times" of February 23rd, 1871.) To the Editor of the Times: Sir, — 1 was surprised to see in your last issue, a letter from Mr. W.A. Stephens about the lecture on "Infallibility," lately delivered in this town, by the Rev. Mr. Ferguson. When the Rev. lecturer commenced, he told his audience that hia purpose was not to create a controversy, but merely to explain the gi'ounds on which the Catholic Church believed the dogma. He re- peated this more than once during his lecture, and it was not hard to see that he did not wish to hurt anybody's feelings, neither did he aay anything calculated to do so. Well then I ask, what crime has been committed by Mr. Ferguson against our common Christianity, or even against the laws of politeness or good breeding, that he, a gentleman, a christian, and a clergyman, should receive such gratuitous insults at the hands of a man who also calls himself a christian, and who, if he believes in Christianity at all, must believe in the doctrine preached by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians ? I will *J\i8t after I had written this, I observed an account of the Pope summon- ing a Cardinal to his presence for daring to dispute the dogma of Infallibility, and treatint; him as I hero state ho would do. t 18 not quote from the Holy Apostle; anybody who reads this bit of a letter of mine can examine this chapter for himself. ] lut Mr. Editor, I think I hear some one or other of my Protestant IVicnds saying, "I don't see any harm in Mr. Stephens' letter; he has merely given his opinion, criticised the lecture a little, and exposed some of the errors of Bomanism." Is that all he has done? Let us see. He calls the Lecturer *• pleasant and plausible." Flaiisible is a word always taken in a bad sense, and ^;?cas«n< being coupled with it, must be taken in a bad sense also; this is the positive degree, or stage No. 1, of insinuating that the Reverend gentleman is a hypocrite and a humbug 1 Then he talks about " looking below the surface of his sophistry," Sophistry also is a -word taken in a bad sense, and is a little worse than plausi- bility. This is the comparative degree, or stage No. 2 of insinuating that the lieverend gentleman is a hypocrite and a humbug. The last paragraph of his Letter refers to the Lecturer's " Shoddy, off from tvhicii Mr. Stephens has taken the gloss.^' We all know the mean- ing of the word "shoddy," and it must be taken in a worse sense than either plausibility or sophistry. Here we have the superlative degree, or stage No. 3 of the insinuation! So that the Rev. Mr. Ferguson, one of the Professors of St. Michael's College, of Toronto, who is, as I said before, a gentleman, a christian, and a clergyman; who is loved and revered by all who know him, as being one of the ]ii()sfc straightforward and sincere of men, is stated by Mr. "W. A. Stephens of the town of Owen Sound, who is a lay member of a small sect of Chi-istians called Campbellites or Disciples, to be a pleasant, plausible, sophistical shoddyist. Not content with thus villifying Mr. Ferguson, he creates an oppor- tunity of having a nice sly stab at Catholics in general when he says: "According to Mr. Ferguson, there are two hundred and fifty millions of Catholics who believe that the words spoken to Peter, ' I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and what thou shalt ])iu(l ou earth shall be bound in Heaven,' conferred on the Pope of Rome the right and the power to do all this. Now, in the name of all who reverence the Word of God, I can't believe it, although this avowal bring me under the anathema of the Pope, &c." He here says, " In the name of all who reverence the Word of God, I can't believe it." Pretty hard to tell what "it" means, according to tlie construction — might mean Father Ferguson's statement about the hundred and fifty millions of Catholics ; if so, then there is an insinu- tliat Father Ferguson is a liar — might mean that long list of nonsense wJiich he wishes to shew "according to Mr. Ferguson" that Catholics l)'>1ieve, although according to Mr. Ferguson nothing of the sort was sfafed, IMr. Stephens having merely drawn on his imagination for all that. If the latter then there is an insinuation that Catholics do not nnercnce the Word of God (meaning the written Word of God I pre* sumc.) This would be a gross slander not worth trying to refute. I am endeavoring to keep entirely clear of Theology, whether I can continue to the end to do so I cannot say; but I do not like polemical discussions — scarcely ever do they either change or modify the religious opinions of any one. If needs be, I can give a good account of iny faith ; but such is not my object. I wish to reprove, as far as cue humble individual can, the bad ta"te, the spite, the malice, M " 17 Against the Beverend Lecturer and against Catholics in general, which crops up throughout Mr. Stephens' Letter. In his last paragraph, just before that precious postscript of his ; haying scratched, written, and clawed to his heart's content, he apes the Good Samaritan, and tries to pour in a very little oil and wine, by saying that he is not influenced by any ill-will towards the Cath- olics. I suppose that after what he had written, he thought some 6uch phantom of an apology was necessary. Why should he have any ill-will towards us? Are we not as good Christians as others? Are we not as good citizens as others? Are we not as inoffensive as others? Don't we mind our own business as much as others ? Don't we abstain from meddling with other people's opinions as much as others — especially Mr. Stephens? If Mr. Stephens is not actuated by ill-wxll towards us, he has a curious way of shewing it. Does he think that any Catholic Christian who reads his Letter will think he is not so actuated? No, sir : bitter hatred is too strongly manifested throughout his production to allow any such to suppose so; and whether the feeling exhibited is directed against nm as individuals, or collectively, as members of the Catholic Church, it is equally unchar- itable. But sir, we can stand it, and the Ch arch can stand it. That Church which has stood the assaults of the Sectarians for one thou- sand eight hundred and odd years, is not going to be demolished iust yet ; in fact not till the consummation of all things, and then not de- molished but only changed £rom the Catholic Church militant to the Catholic Church triumphant. Her mission always has been, is, and always will be, during time, to lift up her voice against the errors of the centuries. What she was in the first century, she was also in the second ! What she was in the second, she has been ever since, and is now in the nineteenth : and such she will continue to be until the end of time ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her! ■ I am, Mr. Editor, Yours truly, • GEOEGE SPENCER. LETTER No. 1 OF MR. FERGUSON. (From " Owen Sound Tinm" of March 8rd, 1871.^ To the Editor of the Tvmes : Dear Sir, — Will you kindly allow me a small space in your columns, that I may correct a very ridiculous blunder your last week's correspondent about Infallibility fell into. In his Letter pub- lished in your paper, he gives under the name of a paternal address from Pius the Ninth to the King of Italy, a tirade of mingled ob- scenity and plasphemy of the most shocking and disgusting nature. We are forced, out of a d'sire we have to entertain a good opinion of your correspondent, to consider that he thought this horrible stuff was a papal document. Of course he was bound in common honesty, and out of consideration for hi>3 Catholic neighbors, to make serious efforts to discover the truth. We hope he did, and that the great crime he has committed in ascribing this monstrous production to the Head of the Catholic Church, is due, not to unfairness, but to a lack of scholarship. I am quite convinced, Mr. Editor, I need not tell you (who doubtless enjoyed a hearty laugh at the silly mistake) the history of this paternal address. ' C MMP wmmmm^ 13 Every reader is acquainted with the name of the Bev. Latireuee Bteme, a witty clever Irishman. He was bom at Glonmel, in Tipper< ory, in the year 1718. He spent his life in an atmosphere of mis- chievous merriment, poking fun at everybody and everything that furuisliod an opportunity for making a laugh. Not )ven the 8acre4 character of a clergyman — he took vows in the English Church — could repress this natural levity, and he tells us in his autobiography " books, painting, fddling and shooting were my amusements," ii^ his parish of Stillington in Yorkshire. Such an unclerical mode of passing his time was, we suppose, the reason why he was often iU prepared to preach to his flock on Sun- day. But whoever heard of a Tipperary man without his resources ? ••When he had little to say or little to give his people, he had recourse to the abuse of Popery. Hence he called it his ' Cheshire Cheese.' It had a two-fold advantage — it cost him very little, and he found by experience that nothing satisfied so well the hungry appetite of his congregation. They always devoured it greedily." The man who wrote this, wrote also a book called "Tristram Shandy," and in obedience to the admirable principle enunciated by him above, he took to the abuse of Popery, in the form of a sentence of excommunication, supposed to have been passed, not by a Pope, but by a certain Ernulphus, Bishop of Rochester. The whole history of the thing, may be found in " Tristram Shandy", pp. 78 et seq. in the edition of that work published oy George Boutledge & Sons, London. Now, will anybody believe that this piece of wicked, blasphemous mockery, which has just enough of Catholic phraseology in it to de- ceive the very unwary, could have been published by a gentleman pretending to be a theologian, and ascribed to a reigning Pontiff. It IS humiliating in the ast degree tp think that any one could have made such a stupid mistake; and if it is not a mistake — if the writer knew what it was when he had it published, we know of no words strong enough to condemn such foul dealing. We are inclined to think, however, that it was your correspondent's learning, not his honesty, that was at fault, and so dismiss the painful thing from our mind with just one observation, that however the Lecturer may have succeeded in proving Papal Infallibilty, the correspondent has been most triumphantly successful in showing himself fallible, very fallible indeed ! And if his theological knowledge is at all equal to his critical scholarship, that promised book of his will be a gem in its way. Of course, for reasons that this Letter will make obvious to every one, I take no notice at all of the first half of his Letter. Indeed, there is not a word in it that does not go rather to prove than to dis- prove our claim, provided of course, it be admitted that God, and not Your obedient servant, M.J.FERGUSON - man, made the church. LETTER No. 2 OF MR. FERGUSON. (From "Owen 8ound Times" of March 10th, lS7h) To the Editor of the Times: Dear Sir, — We suppose we must answer the theology of Mr. Stephen's letter, not because it contains a single sentiment of any weight 19 f 7 '^l against onr views, but because if we do not notice it he might tliink it was a difficulty for us. The letter itself while it does not prove that its writer may not be an honest man, certainly does little to establish for him a reputation for abilitv of any kind, and is as slovenly and lumbering a production as anything we have had the misfortune to meet with for some time. It sets out with a kind of compliment to me, which from such a source, I hope I know how to estimate; and then goes on to charge me with having asked the audience to assume — what Mr. Stephens considers the very point in dispute. Now the gentleman was present at the Lecture, and therefore knows that I neither assumed anything myself nor asked any one else to assume anything of any kind or sort. I was not in controversy at all, but simply stating the theory of the Catholic Church on the question of Infallibility. Argument of whatever kind was neither attempted nor thought of, and as assump- tion belongs, not to statement, in which I was engaged, but to argu- ment, in which I was not engaged, I, of course, could not be guilty of any kind of assumption. This is Mr. Stephens' first mistake. His second is more senous, for it consists in doing the very thing which he is so wi'athful for thinking (wi'ongly) I did. If the interminable sentence, * ' the vast extent of flimsy lines" be- ginning with "But he asks," and ending about half a column from these words, means anything at all, it means that in his estimation the simple fact that we Catholics, numerous though we certainly are, make any claim, or put forth any pretensions, is disproof, more than sufficient, of both the claim and the pretension. His reasoning, when put into shape (and it sorely needs methodising) is this: If Protes- tantism be the truth, Catholicity and Catholics are a great humbug; but Protestantism is the truth, therefore, &c. , <&c. That this is not a mistaken notion of mine, is fully evinced by the writer's express declaration, further on, to the effect that if the Pope is infallible, all Protestants are wrong. There is not a doubt about tnis. No man, outside of a lunatic asylum, can pretend that of two contradictions, more than one can be true. The great point in discussion between us is, not at all whether the one ov the other is false, but which of the two is true, and which is false. Poor Mr. Stephens, misled by liis vanity, or let us hope by his honest but uninstructed zeal, and happily oblivious of the ponderous volumes that have left the momen- tous question still unsettled, in the most innocent manner imaginable, quietly assumes the truth of his own views, and then goes on to con- clude that I was a very foolish fellow indeed for daring to question them. His logic reminds me of nothing in the world so forcibly, as of his criticism, which did not know the difference between the foul pro- duction of a profligate Protestant minister of the 18th century, and a ••paternal address * of the sainted Pius the IX. In proof that we are not misrepresenting this theological luminary, it is not necessary to follow him through the wide range of topics in discussion between Catholics and Protestants, though on the assumption that everything Catholic is therefore false, he has dragged in matter enough for twenty folio volumes of controversy. Let an instance of his own choosing suffice. He admits that I was right in my commentary on the passage of Holy Scripture which speaks of the grant of the Kejrs of the JKingdom of Heaven to St. Peter: "This we, without hesita- 90 tlon, believe and accept." These are his own words. Well, then, Mr. Stophens, if Peter received from Christ the Keys of Christ's King- dom, with power to bind and loose, and have his sentence, whether loosing or binding, ratified in heaven, what would you call his office] The word lieutenant or vicar, is the expression men use to characterize him who holds, by delegation from his sovereign, the power symbol- ized by the keys, i.e., jurisdiction. Now, you say that Peter did receive this power, and from Christ Himself, who dlone either opens the Kingdom of Heaven, or is able to delegate this power of opening to anybody. What then would you call Peter] I suppose nothing ele than the Vicar of Christ; there is no other word in the language so apt to express the relation between the two. This, then, is your own admission. Now, let us see what use you make of it: you don't say one word to show that after the death of one Vicar, whose pos- session of that high office you admit, there might not by some chance be another — as is exceedingly likely, since nobody pretends that the gift of the keys to Peter was for his own especial benefit, but rather for the good of the world, and the world lasted after him — not a word; but as usual, quietly (I almost wrote impudently) assume that no such office could possibly descend to anybody else, and then use the claim our theory makes, that there is still a Vicar of Christ on the earth, as an irrefragable proof that there is not. Let me once again^ and for the last time, throw your clumsy argument into logical shape: Peter, I admit, was the Vicar of Christ, or what is the same things received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, as the successor of a king is a king, so the successor of the Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of Christ. Therefore the Pope is not the successor of Peter, or he would be Vicar of Christ, and Mr. Ferguson would be right, which can- not be true. Shades of Aristotle, what logic ! And this wild nonsense Mr. Stephens has the exquisite taste and decency to call "Taking the gloss oflf Mr. F.'s shoddy." ( Query: What does this sentence mean?) Now, my kind, frank Mr. Stephens, why should not I be right a» well as you? You may be, iii leed, a tremendous man, a very Goliah in Scripture and reasoning, though I am afraid a few letters like your last will injure your reputation. You may not have done yourself justice in that communication; but still, if you were twenty-five times the genius you are, or think yourself to be, I would still con- sider myself justified in holding my own views, not because they are my own, but because I find them advocated and maintained by men so much superior to both of us, that they could roll up some scores of us in the comer of their pocket handkerchief, nor know we, poor little things, were there. Surely it is wiser for me, putting aside all higher ground of belief, to follow them, and the great majority of the Christian world, than you and the baker's dozen, relatively, who think with you. I, and two hundred and fifty millions of people, think there was a transmission of the power of the Keys; the mightiest Institution in the earth, the only Church that claims and shews the notes spoken of in the Apostle's Creed, attests my views. You and a few others who cannot agree on anything else among yourselves, deny it; but your denial by no means proves itself, and you have not said a word in proof of it. Quit your noisy, insulting language then, until you have something better to give me than the mere word of yourself. Of course, as my Lecture was not concerned with proofs at all, I do not trouble myself with giving them here. On you, as the ■ } I- «M mmmmmmmm^mmimimm T-^ must be a true coin before there can be a counterfeit; and there never was a forgery upon a bank until genuine bills were issued. So let us have the original that we may see how far it is free from " obscenity and blasphemy," and how far it will illustrate and establish the fact, stated by Mr. Ferguson in his celebrated Lecture, that ''the Pope ia B kind and genial old man, whom everybody loves." But that everybody loves him, is pretty well illustrated already by the fact that in 1848 he had to fly to Naples to escape from the love of his subjects, who were at the same time the homestead flock of sheep and lambs whom he was empcrwered as the successor of Peter to rule and to feed; and it required ten thousand French bayonets to reinstate him on his Pontifical throne, and they had to remain there over twenty years to protect him from the love of that same flock, who would otherwise have butted him over and trampled upon him, or obliged him again to fly. But, although he was f>ll this time " top- pling upon the pinnacle of his greatness" he abated none of his pre- tensions. But his assumption culminated last year, when the Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Infallibility Dogma, at the same time cursing all who reject it. But this had f carcely been done when both he and his Imperial protector were deprsed and uncrowned. Mr. Ferguson, in his Lecture, seems to think that the Pope owed no gratitude to Louis Napoleon for twenty-two years protection, who deserved and received the judgment of God because he withdrew his army from Rome to aid in the terrible struggle in which he was just being engaged. But if he deseives the vengeance of God because he protected the Pope only twenty-two years, what do the other Catholic powers of Europe deserve who made no effort to supply the want of that protection, so long given by the eldest son of the Church. Is it not a fact, pregnant with ominous meaning, that all the Catholic powers, once so mighty and so subservient to the Pope, were either BO crippled or cowed that they could not or dared not protect him, or so indifferent to his fall that they uvtild not; and had not Victor Emmanuel, whom he had cursed, taken possession of Rome and its territory, and by this means protected him from the vengeance of those from whom he had fled in the habiliments of a menial some twenty-two years before, in all probability the chair of St. Peter would have been vacant, and the Cardinals scattered, so that they could not have met in the election chamber of the Vatican to make another Pope. As I presume that Father Ferguson will think that this letter is long enough, I shall now close, as I find by your last issue that you have another letter from him, to which, I presume, I shall have to pay the usual attention. Yours truly, W. A. STEPHENS. P.S. — If you have room for it, please, by way of postscript, print the following; — THE POPE INFALLIBLE. Rome conquered the world, to rule and to fleece he)', The Senate then made a God of their Caesar — ■ I They made him Divine, and then, as in justice, Decreed Divme honors and worshipped Augustus. Their example is follow *d by RoTie, now Papistical, . . So old and so great, so rich and so mystical-- . : f - i .* ,: i DP oas a?sE i K' % In the name, as they say, of the glorious Trinity, The senate of Bishops have made a Divinity: Hoping to place the world under his rod, Who sits now as God, in the temple of God — Commanding the world to submit and come under The power of his mighty Pontifical thunder! And to say, when he speaks, or in blessing oi* ban, **Tis the voice of a God, and not of a man!" There was one who received such applause from a host,* He was eaten of worms, and then gave up the ghost; This fearful example a warning I'd make To those who such blasphemy utter or take. High Clergy were brought from Beersheeba and Dan— And then, in the Hall of the great Vatican, Some four hundred Fallibles made an Jwfallible! And the Catholic faith is so plastic and malleable, It accepts it as true — though it would not be greater For four hundred creatures to make a Creator. t t-: LETTER No. 5 OF MR. STEPHENS. (From " Owen Sound Tiniea" of March 2Uh, 1871.) To the Editor of the Times : Dear Sir, — Mr. Ferguson says, "We suppose we must answer the theology of Mr. Stephens' letter, not because it contains a single statement of any weight against our views, but because if we do not notice it, he might think it a difl&culty for us." Now, when I wrote my letter, I did not suppose that Mr. Ferguson or any of the advo- cates of Romanism, would, or dare admit any statement im my letter, or in any other letter that ever has been or ever shall be written, did or will contain anything of any weight against their views. I have long known the course and character of this class too well to expect anything like this. To preserve their prestige and influence, requires that they should not do it; and this claim to Infallibility places them in such a position that they dare not do it; for, of course, there can be nothing wrong in what is perfect, nothing untinie in what is infallible — as they claim their Church to be. Men who are untrammeled by an Infallible system, and do not claim that they have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, can examine evidence and argument, and like the noble disciples at Berea (Acts xvii. 11), can accept them if they are sound and true. Mr. Ferguson denies that he wished the audience to take for granted that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, as I stated in my stricture upon his Lecture. That whole Lecture was based upon the assump- tion that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter, for it was on that and that alone that he founded the Infallible Dogma, as do all Ro- manists. He tells us also that "argument of whatever k}.nd was neither attempted or thought of" in his Lecture. Did he not say ''It is made an argwnmt against Infallibility that Peter denied his #AotB xii. '.■■ii Master f* and did he not then make a statement for the purpose of shewing that this argument had no validity? Is there no attempt at argument of any kind here? Did he not say "We claim that the Pontiffs of the Jewish Church were endowed with freedom from doc- trinal error?" and thence draws the inference that to that purer Church which our Saviour instituted, a like power should be given. Is tliere no argument of any kind here ? I stated in my first letter, that Mr. Ferguson was wrong in saying that the Pontiffs of the Jewish Church were preserved from doctnnal error; and I gave for proof the golden calf of Aaron, and the decision of the High Priest in Mark xiv. 20; and although Mr. Ferguson has not had the honesty to admit his error, it is consoling that he has not had the mendacity to deny it. Ho H"*ys "Poor Mr. Stephens is hap^jily oblivious of the ponderous volumes that have left the mo- mentous question still uasettled." That is the Infallibility of the i 'ope, which he admits then is still unsettled. I feel happy, indeed, jtlit. t although Popery may require its votaries to wade through these -non*, leroi is volumes, Christianity does not. Its Author has given us iout o.'ic vi^lume, and he tells us by his Apostle Paul (2 Tim. iii. 15), 'that it is 8"^^® **^ make wise unto salvation through faith in Christ J^esttfi. Wh.Ht do we want more than this religiously, than to be made mm e nn.*o salvation ? " The words that I speak shall judge you -^t the lasv" da>^-" Of what value, then, at that assize, will be the words ! of PfWo'^ ^°^''^^^®' "^^^^ *^® Judge shall say (Matt, xxv.), 1 was 'humgiy* ^^^ 7^ ^®^ "^®» naked, and ye clothed me; sick, an'' in prison .imcl ye viaited me. As to the term or title " Vicar of Christ " whidi Mr. Ferguson tries to explain and defend, I once for all say that »either M, nor Pope nor Pontiff, nor universal Bishop, were ever giwen or ta»^en by the authority of Christ or his apostles; and therefore ?txhe namt^s and office are alike devoid of divine sanc- tion and cannot be admitted as necessary in the Church of Christ. Mr-^Ffirguson pretends to put what he calls my "clumsy statement" into logical shape, and calls it my wild nonsense, and exclaims, *' Shades of Aiistotle, what logic!" I would ask what that old heathen has to do with settling any doctrine of Christian faith? For, although he stood high in tlie ranks of those whom the Apostle says "by wisdom knew t, This one fellow camo in t'; sojourn amongst us, and he will need be a judge. He and his silly wife and daughters think that they are wiser and better than all the wise and the great men of the cities of the Plain. It is wiser for us to be with them, than to believe Lot's feeble and miserable No. Fire and brimstone from heaven was the answer of God to their profane assumption. And again, there was once an immense crowd at the base of Mount Sinai (Exodus xxxii. 28), where there was also a golden calf, which Aaron, the High Priest had made. The miserable No of the faithful few was drowned by the thunder i)f the million who shouted "These ai3 thy Gods, O Israel!" but that thunder was answered by the sum- mary execution of three thousand of the Idolaters, at the command of the Lord God of Israel, by the faithful minority who had uttered that No. And again, (1 Kings, xviii.) Baal's prophets were four hundred and fifty men. They had said with the multitude of Israel, by bow- ing their knee to him, that Baal was Ood ; while the yps of these millions was niet only by the feeble no of seven thousand scattered throughout the land of Israel. But one single prophet of God met those four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal upon Mount Cannel — when fire from heaven burning up his sacrifice attested the truth of Elijah, which was followed by the immediate slaughter of all the idol prophets. And again, Daniel iii. — Perhaps the most magnificent religious fes- tival ever witnessed in the world, took place in the plains of Dura, in the Province of Babylon, when perhaps the largest mass of gold that was ever melted was made into a golden image, 90 feet high and 9 feet wide, made and set up by the command of the mighty Nebachadnezzar. All the princes, rulers, governors, judges, treasurers, sherifi"8 and councillors, of all the provinces of his mighty Empire, were thus with the multitudes of Babylon, brought by the King's decree to the dedi- cation of this magnificent image. At the sound of all kinds of music the vast multitude by their simultaneous prostration and worship said: This is our God. There were only three v/ho uttered a feeble no. The words spoken to their fathers so long before: "Thou shalt not bow down to, or serve any graven image," brought the thunder and glory of Mount Sinai before them, and threw the blackness and dark- ness of damning Idolatry over all this Babylonian grandeur; and they stood erect, despite the wrath of the mighty and terrible king, the example of the multitude, .ind the terrors of the furnace of fire, into which they knew they must be thrown! They replied to the King: *' Our God whom we serve is able to deliver vis from the burning fiery furnace. But if not, be it knoMTi, O King, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the image which thou hast set up." One like unto the Son of God was in the furnace to protect them, and made its fiery % i 38 blast like a summer breeze; and how honored has been and will be through all time, this glorious minority of three! And in this same country there was the minority of one who dared the terrors of the Lion's den, rather than renounce the God of his fathers, by even seeming to abstain from his accustomed worship. Now let us come to the second volume of Revelation, and we see JesuF^ the Nazarene; the raging multitude headed by the priests cried out: He is a blasphemer, let him be crucified. The feeble no of his terrified disciples was drowned in the thunder of the yes of his ruthless murderers. But in spite of all this God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, and to him every knee shall bow to the glory of God the Father. And again, the martyr Stephen, (Acts vii.) singly and alone avowed and defended his faith in that crucified Nazarene, against his maddened murderers, who now surrounded himself. Oh, the matchless glory of that hour when he saw "Jesus standing at the right hand of God,'' and told his enemies what he saw I Jesus, it would seem, had stood up and looked down from heaven to encourage his faithful disciple, whose spirit he was so soon to receive in accordance with his prayer. And we all remember (Acts xix.) when the pretended Pagan piety of Demetrius the silver- smith, roused the thunder of the thousands of Ephesus, who cried out in a two hours' vociferous repetition: "Great is Diana of the Ephe- sians I" which for a time di'owned the feeble no of the disciples of Jesus; but that yes was the fabrication of priestly inij)osture — and that no the utterance of eternal truth. And we all remember the solemn words of Him who spak,e as never man spake, " Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." I think I have now said enough to convince even Mr. Ferguson that in matters of religion, at least, even very large majorities are not always infallible. Mr. Ferguson says to me, "quit your noisy, insulting language until you have something better to give me than the mere word of yourself." I really thought that I had in my letter he refers to quoted some pas- sages of scripture and based all my argument and statements upon the authority of the word of God; but he tells me here that I have given the mere word of myself ! Although this is said by the redoubtable Father Ferguson, can even Catholics believe it 1 He certainly does not, and cannot believe it himself; and I must admire the audacity of this pert young priest in ordering me to quit writing, as if I were one of his pupils, or as if he had the Inquisition at his back. I said in the beginning of this controversy that Mr. Ferguson was both pleasant and plausible, and so he was in our Town Hall, when he was face to face with some hundreds of intelligent Protestants, whom ho hoped to hoodwink by his sophistry; but now when he finds his attempt is an utter failure, his pleasant plausibility has vanished, leaving not a wreck behind. He says also: "On you, as the attacking party, rests the burden of proving me wrong." If there is any reliance in logic; any force in argument; any truth in scripture — it is the opinion of this community that I have done it, that I have proved him wrong; and they will hold this opinion until he shows that my quotations of scripture are untrue, my logic is false, and my argument therefore unsound. As I have been urged to republish this controversy in pamphlet form, which I intend doing, it will take one or tivo more letters 39 J t > farther to illustrate the subject, in order still more clearly to show that this system called Catholicity has no claim to any part of the Kin{?dom of Heaven of which Peter had the Keys, much less to ita entire monopoly. W. A. STEPHENS. [We are always willing to allow the use of our columns for fair controversy on any of the topics of the day, be they poUtical, religious, or otherwise, as must be evident from the space we have given to the present discussion ; but it is evident the controversy on this point is ended — indeed, Mr. Stephens has been allowed several letters since the gentleman on the other side announced his intention of writing no more'^ — and if Mr. Stephens now, with no pretence of controversy, desires to go on writing with the intention of publishing a book against Popery, we think the columns of a secular newsp"ner hardly the place for it. — Ed. Times.] CONTINUATION OF THE ARGUMENT BY MR. STEPHENS. In my last letter to the Times, notwithstanding the orders given me by Mr. Ferguson to stop my writing, I intimated my intention of resuming the subject at issue between us. In his letter which I am still considering, he speaks of those who opf)ose the assumption of the Papal Church, as being like a swine which he saw at Quebec, rising from the gutter and rubbing its itchingback against the mighty citadel. Thus, we Protestants, "rising from the quagmire of heresy, rub against a buttress of the old Church, and bring into disrepute some of the grand old dogmas, that, revealed by Christ and interpreted by Catholicity, have consoled the saints and christianized mankind." In this controversy, I referred to a good many of what he calls grand old dogmas revealed by Christ. I confess, however, I think it irreverent to speak of the dogmas of Christ. How would it sound in the ears of any one who reverences the Word of God, to read, " He that heareth these dogmas of mine, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like," &c.; or, "The dogmas that I speak shall judge you at the last day ;" or, "He that keepeth my dogmas, he it is that lovethme;" or, in His great commission to the apostles, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all my dogmas." No! this term, as applied to the teacbn?g and commands of Chri'^^t, savors too much of the "interpretations of Ci'.>holicity" to be agreeable to a Christian ear, or to be toleraced by a Christian heart. I wish it here to be understood, that iw oue can be a Christian, in the Christian sense of that term, who prays to, or worships any one lower than Christ Himself, who has a)! power in heaven and earth, and who is to be the Judge of the living and the dead. I have referred to many of the grand old trutJis revealed, and cowi- mands given by Chi'ist, and I would ask Mr. Ferguson, or (as he says he will not answer) any one«lse, to lay his finger on any on of these I hr ried to bring into disrepute ; for if I had no love or reverence for His name, the solemn and abiding conviction, thot IIis word will judge me at the last day, would prevent my doing so. " God com- *My throe last letters were published after Mr. Forgi'jo .'s two, so that I had actually only one letter more than ho in the regulj,r . un of tho controversy. warn / 40 mands thee always for thy good." " He that hath my word, let him speak my word; what is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord." — Jer. xxiii. 28. " As the heavens are hif:[her than the earth, bo are my thougltts higher than your thoughts;" (Isa. Iv.) and all we know of the thoughts of God are what he has expressed in words. "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." And in searching the Scriptures, I have endeavored to do so, not for the purpose of finding something to support my own views, either indi- vidual or denominational, but for the purpose of finding what the Scriptures say, that I may have an intelligent faith, resting not ''in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God ;" and I have tried to keep down any desire that the Scriptures should say anything else than what they do say on any subject, either of fact, faith or duty. And I hold it to be a trith that cannot be questioned, without dis- honoring God and endangering the safety of man, that it is worse in God's sight to do anything that He has forbidden, than anything else that any one else has forbiddden ; and that it is more pleasing in His sight to do anything He has commanded, than to do anything else that any one else has commanded. And no human testimony, how- ever strong, and no ar<.rument, however specious, can warrant us in either distrusting or disobeying him. Now, viewing the subjects at issue between Christianity and Popery in the light of the above prop'^^.ition, which no Priest or Professor can successfully deny, what havoc it makes of the ritual of llonianism! For all the prayers, to all the saints, that were ever offered, by all the Catholics that ever lived, cannot be of as much value in the sight of God, as one true prayer, offered by a Christian, to Himself, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ; for He has not commanded us to ask Him anything in any other ■jiawe; and "there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved," Acts iv.l2. And what becomes of all the prayers, of all the Priests, for all the pay that has so enriched the Papacy, for the purpose of passing the souls of Parishioners and Priests, and even Popes themselves, out of Purgatory! And what, also, becomes of all the holy ivater that has been sprinkled; and all the incense that has been burned; the crtici- fixes that have been worn or kissed; the relics that have been adored; the pilgrimages that have been made; of all the indulgences that have been purchased; of all the candles that have been lighted in the day- time as part of worship; of all the monasteries and nunneries, with the ascetic lives of their inmates i Who hath required these things at yo\ir hands] God has not; we have neither command nor example from the Lord or any of his apostles for any of these things. But they all have come by the "interpretations [and interf)olations] of Catho- licity" — yes, these terrible, these fearful "interpretations of Catho- licity." "I t^iank thee, Jcav, for teaching mo those words." I have shown in " that long, clumsy sentence," in my first letter, (which Mr. Ferguson found so awkward a thing to grapple with,) what the interpretation of Catholicity did with the saying of the Lprd to Peter, "I will give unto thee fne Keys of the Kingdom." Catholicity has endeavored to make our Lord responsible for, as authorizing all those fearful departures from the truth, which I ex- hibited and gibbeted in that letter. "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." — Isa. viii. 20. 41 As none of these things are among the commands of God, they must all be merely the commands of men. And our Lord has said (Matt. XV. 9), "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." But Catholics get out of this, they think, by saying they are the commands of the Church; and they try to fortify this position by the passage at the close of a law, quoted by me in full, in ray last letter: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." This is the only passage in the Scriptures where it speaks of any one being obliged to hear the Church, and this is only in carrying out a distinct law, jnst then given But the "interpretation of Catholicity" makes this pas- sage give xhe power to the Clergy to force all within 'the Papal pale, upon the pains of eternal damnation, to obey all the laws which they may think for the interest of their order to enact; and the Catholic laity, usually, if not always, give as a reason for doing anything religiously, "It is the rule of the Church;" and for not doing any- thing, "It is against the rules of the Church." When do you hear a Catholic say, " I do such or such a thing, because it is commanded in the Word of God." If he prays to the saints — it's the rule of the Church; if he counts his beads — it's the rule of the Church; if he says his Ave Maria — it's the rule of the Church; if he refuses to eat meat on Friday — it's the rule of the Church; and if he fasts on some saint's day — its the rule of the Church, which takes upon itself (as was prophesied by Paul it would) to command to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving. — 1 Tim. iii. 4. Some of their fasts, it must be admitted. Jure .,jt very grievous, for I met a Catholic once at an hotel, and while at dinner he was careful to draw our attention to the circumstance that he ate no meat, and said, "This is one of the Fast days of our Church, but," he added, "I'll tako a double supply of pudding." He did not "disfigure his face," or put on "a sad countenance," to let us know he was fasting, like the ancient Pharisees, but he took care to tell us of it. I do not think he received much glory from men at that time, at least, in consequence of his abstinence. I may here observe that there is no authority given in Testf,ment, (which contains the law of the Spirit of life Je9>is, and which makes free from the law of sin and death,) to aut'^ori-ie :»,ny man, or body of men, io force any one to /as<, although a^jy oiu uiay do it voluntarily; and we know that the disciples did nor vftsi while the Lord was with them. — Luke v. 44. We have, it is tru«, y.i- eral examples of some cf the Apostles and first Christians fastiu; ; but in doing it, they did not quote the rule of the Church as a reutiou, «nd then it was evidently entire abftintence tromicod — as the meaning of the word itself implies. I may here observe again, that there is no command :n the Now Testament to fast — every individual Christian is left to decile how long, and at what particular time he ought to abstain from food; although Rome teaches, as it was lately observed by a speaker in Montreal, that "it is worse to eat honest mutton on Friday, than to steal a sheep on Sunday." To be a true Christian, a man must know what the Lord has com- manded, and then believe and obey Him; to be a true Roman ■ Vtholic, all that is necessary, is to obey the rules of the Church, > Miout the privilege of examining whether they are right or wrong — for the right of private judgment is denied. the New Christ in wf^mp 42 "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Tlie mterpretaiion of Catholicity is, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," saith the Church, or the Pope, who is its head — and he is, no doubt, the true head of that Church. But to make the Lord Jesus responsible for having appointed him, is one of the most terrible interpretatAons of Catho- licity. The Scriptures say, (2 Tim. ii. 4, 5,) "A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife." "One that rules well his own, house, having his children in sul9Jection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his ovm house, how can he take care of the Church of God ?" And again, (Titus i. 8,) speaking of appointing Elders, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faith- ful children, not accused of riot, or unruly." Now, the interpretation of Catholicity is, "A Bishop shall not have a wife," and therefore, that he shall not have any children; and in consequence, he shall not be able to give that evidence of fitness for the Bishop's office, which the Word of God positively requires. And not only this, but he must take a solemn oath, when first made a Priest, that he never will take a wife. You see he-.v, how the authority of the Church is placed above the authority c \rori, by the interpretations of Catho- licity, as CO the Priests, as t .. .re no Priests in the Churches founded by the Apostles; there lothing said, of course, whether they should marry or not. As to monks or n\ins, as the Scripture knows nothing about them either, there is nothing said about whether they should marry or not. But the Word of God says. Let marriage be honorable in all; biit the interpretation of Catholicity says, "Let marriage not be honorable in aM." The Scripture says, (James v. 16,) "Confess your faults one to another." The interpretation of Catholicity on this passage is, "Con- fess your sins to the Priest." You must turn your soul inside out to the gaze of one, whose own soul, for oiight you know, may be black with secret pollution, as some of the Priests at least, have been known to be. What a fearful power this gives the clergy over the laity! and if we believe the revelations of those Priests who have broken loose from Rome, it is most terrible, and often fatal to the innocence and purity of the confessing females, as the natural result of such unrestrained intercourse. The Scripture says, "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband;" but the intepretation of Catholicity denies this safeguard against impurity to all the above classes. Some find fault with the Scriptures for speaking in plain language about natural things. Who- ever you are that does so, have you considered what this objection involves ? It is this : that you are wiser than God ! that the words of the Holy Spirit are not sufficiently refined to suit yonr fastidious ears ! In our Legislative enactments, in the investigations of our Courts of law, in our books upon medical science and the prevention of disease, it is found necessary to speak in plain language of such things; and is it less necessary in the statute book of Heaven; in the judicial decisions of the Judge of all the earth; in the volume given by the Great Physician of souls — to speak of things as they are ? and what daring assumption is it for men to find fault! I may here state a fact, that perhaps everybody has not observed, that no apostle, prophet, evan- gelist, teacher, bishop or deacon, during the lifetime of our Lord or his Apostles, were ever required to take an oath or vow of any kind, either before or after his appointment to office. But the interpretations I '■I ■ 43 ■IT, ' -.■< and interpolations of Catholicity, command every one, male or female^ appointed to any office, or on becoming connected with any ecclesias- tical or religious order, to take an oath of celibacy and of obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors. I have just read the oath of a Bishoi), and in it he swears obedience in all things to his Lord the Pope, and to persecute and destroy heretics, &c. There is nothing in the oath, however, about obedience to the laws of Christ Jesus. And there i» no instance in the Scriptures, of any one being required to take a vow or oath in becoming a Christian — a simple confession of faith and obedience to the Gospel, was all that was required. The only oath recorded in the Word of God, connected with the Kingdom of Heaven, of which Peter had the Keys, is in Heb. vii, 21, as quoted from the 110th Psalm, " The Lord sware, and He will not repent, Thou art an High Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec;" and here the oath was taken, not by Christ, who was appointed High Priest, but by God the Father, who appointed Him. The Lord Jesus, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread and gave thanks, and brake and gave to the disciples, and said " This is my body, given for you." He also took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to the disciples, saying "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament, shed for many, for remission of sins." — Matt, xxvi. 20. And Paul, (1 Cor. xi.) after speaking of the institution, says, "He that eateththe bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord un- worthily, shall be guilty of the body and blMod of the Lord." Now this was not said to any particular class in the Church, but to all th& Church in Corinth, (1st chap. ver. 2, 3,) "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Now the interpreta- tion of Catholicity is, "None but the Clergy shall drink of the cup of the Lord." Is it because the Clergy like wine so much themselves that they can't spare any of it for the laity] or is it for fear that they might drink it unworthily, and be guilty of the blood of the Lord, and therefore they drink all the wine themselves to keep the flock from being guilty ? Now, can any man who knows anything of the character and dignity of Christ, believe that He gave the power to any man or set of men to repeal any of the laws of His kingdom, and to violate His most solemn and sacred commands. If he did do this, then Christ is divided against Himself , and His kingdom cannot stand; and what He said(Johtt xii. 48,) "he that rejecteth me and heareth not my words, hath one that judgeth him. The words that I speak shall judge him in the last day," should have been, according to the interpretation of Catholicity, "The words of the successors of Peter shall judge him in the last day." And if the interpretation of Catholicity is true, Christ also gave the power to the Pope to repeal one of the Ten Command- ments, given by Jehovah on Mount Sinai, and written with his finger on stone, which I referred to in a former letter, and which is the second commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters unler the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." How terribly the saying of Paul is verified: "He exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." Christ says: "Drink ye all of it." The Pope says: "The laity shall not drink of it." The Holy Spirit says, by Paul: "A Bishop must be the husband of one IPP 44 wife." The Pope Bays: "He shall not have a wife." Jehovah says; "Thou shalt not bow down to any graven image." The Pope says; "Thoushalt do it." Thus, in defiance of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — all that is called God — he keeps wives from the Bishops; the cup from the laity; and gives graven images to both. I. Corinthians xi. 24, we are told that "the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread [or a loaf], and when He had given thanks,Hesaid 'Take eat, this is my body which is given for you;, this do in remembrance of me.' " And the Apostle adds, in the 26th verse, "As often as ye eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do- show the Lord's death till He come." Here observe that Paul speak* of it as bread before the Lord gave thanks; and calls it still bread after the thanks were given. The interpretation of Catholicity is: You shall not take bread, and break it, and give a piece to each of the congregation; but the Priest shall take a wafer for each of the com- municants, — and that the Pope gives the power to each of the 40,000 of his Priests to change each of these wafers into the body and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ; and thus on each sacra' ment time, to work miracles upon the Creator; to make each of these wafers an individual God, to be masticated and swallowed by the wor- shippers. I would ask how long these wafers continue to be, after they are eaten, "the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus," and when do these attributes pass away from the persons of the faithful Catholics ? This interpretation of Catholicity is so horrible and impious that it is almo t too revolting to describe it. In support of this dogma of the Church, they quote John vi. 53, &c: "Then Jesus said unto them. Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you," &c. Many of the disciples understanding this literally, said "This is a hard saying, who can hear if?" Jesus corrected their misapprehension in the 63rd verse: "The ^es/i profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life." — that is: His literal flesh would profit nothing to eat it. If the Catholic dogma be true, that His flesh is literally eaten, then we must believe that Christ, (John XV. 1,) is a literal vine, growing in the earth and supported by a wall or trellis; and that the Apostles are literal branches. And also, CJohn X. 7,) we must believe that Christ is a literal door, hanging upon hinges, fastened to the walls of a literal sheep-fold. And also, that in the Great Day of Judgment, (Matt, xxv.) those on the right are to be literal sheep, and those on the left are to be literal goats. Upon the principal of this dogma, Nicodemus was right (John iii. 4,) when he asked: "How can a man be bom when he is old; can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born ?" But the Lord corrected his misapprehension, (as he did his disciples', in reference to eating his flesh,) by informing Nicodemus that the birth he spoke of was "of water and the Spirit," for what is born of the flesh is flesh -^so that if it were possible to repeat the natural birth, it would still be a fleshly one, and only produce as before a fleshly being. As to Transubstantiation — in this the Priests claim the power to do what was never given to the Apostles, that of changing one substance into another: for in the list of miracles which the Lord empowered the Apostles to do, when He sent them on their mission to preach, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," (Matt. x. 8,) He em- powored them by His word to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse '.,' ^i I mmmmim 48 the lepers, cast out devils; He did ndt add: "changis on6 substanM into another." This He did only once Himself, when, in Cana of Galilee, (John ii.) He made water into wine. Then the waterceased to be water, and had all the qualities — both to eye and taste — of genuine and good wine, for the Governor of the feast said when par- taking of it: ''You have kept the good wine until now." If it had continued to look like water, to taste like water, and when taken into the stomach effected the drinker just as water did, who would or could have believed it to be wine? and such a miracle could not have "manifested forth His glory," as John said this miracle did. Now, if the Papal Dogma is true, that the wafer is changed into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, then it must look like blood and taste like blood — and human blood, too — and it must look like flesh and taste like flesh — and human flesh, too — or else there is no evidence to satisfy any one who dares to use his reason and senses, that the miracle has been performed — for all the miracles ever wrought by Moses or the Prophets, or by Christ or His Apostles, were obvious and evident to the senses of all who beheld them. Moses was empowered in one instance, (Exodus vii. 20,) to change one substance into another — the waters of the river of Egypt into blood, in the sight of the Egyptians; and in consequence, the fish died and the river stank. Had it looked, and tasted, and smelt like water, where would have been the evidence of the miracle; and who among either Egyptians or Israelites would have believed it ? I shall now examine, in the light of the New Testament, the foun- datiwi dogma of Catholicity, which affirms that the words spoken by the Saviour, (Matt. xvi. 18,) **Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church," made Peter the foundation, and placed the Church upon him. Now, let us take for granted that this is true — that Peter was made the veritable foundation and rock. The foun- dation once laid, and the buiding upon it, that foundation cannot be changed or removed, but must always continue. For instance, who could think of removing the foundation of St. Peter's, at Rome, with- out demolishing the structure; but according to the interpretation of Catholicity, when Peter died, the foundation was removed, and his successor at Rome was made the rock or foundation in his stead; so that every time the Pope dies, the Church has to undergo the process of getting a new foundation or changins^ of the rock. This cannot be gainsayod, fox' the Pope is not said to be the representative of Peter, but his successor. Now, a successor to any office, has all the powers, rights and prerogatives of him whom he succeeds. For instance, the present sovereign of England succeeded to all the power and func- tions of the potentates before her; and so, President Grant succetied to all the functions given by the Constitution to the first President, of whom he is the last successor; so that, the Pope being the successor of Peter, must now be the veritable rock or foundation on which Christ has built his Church; and as it sometimes occured that a con- siderable time elapsed before a new Pope was elected, 'he Church had to stand during that time without a foundation, for the body of the deceased Pope was, of course, takdn from under it as soon as he was dead. The Lord added, "Whatsoever thou jhilt bind on earth fhall be bound in Heaven;" so that Peter, after he had left the earth, Ha.d no authority to bind or loose, as it was only while he was on to,tth that he had authority from this promiso— altiiough, all tliat he spoken ■"■F I llillf* 46 or wrote, as moved by the Spirit of God, has the same binding and loosing power that it had when it was first uttered; but we have had no word or message from him since his death; and he never said any- thing before he died about having a successor, either in his recorded sayings or his epistles. And he never said anything to lead any one to suppose that he considered himself to be the Rock on which the Church was built. John tells us, in his history, (chap. i. 42,) at the first interview J esus had with Peter, that He said, "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a [rock. O, no! Jesus did not say rock, but] stone." This was to be Simon's new name. In the memorable conversation at Caesarea Philippi, Peter said to Jesus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" and then Jesus confirmed what he had said before, by saying, "Thou art Peter, (which is the same as Cephas, by intepre- tation, stone,) on this Rock I will build my Church; I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," &c. Now, in reference to the Kingdom, it had not then come, for Jesits had instructed his apostles, and also the seventy disciples, to go throughout the land of Israel, and to preach that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. This plainly shows that it had not then come, but was soon to arrive or appear. "On this rock I will build my Church." Now, it is quite plain that the Church was not then built, but was fo 6e in the/itfwrc. "I will give you the Keys." Now, this implies that Peter never had the Keys, but was to receive them at some future time. It was also plain, that the Kingdom announced and prayed for, was to come to, and be set up in this world where the proclamation was made and where the prayers were oifered; where it could be seen, entered into and enjoyed, and not to come to, or be set up in any other part of God's universe. Now, it will be observed, that although the Church had not been built, the foundation had been laid. Christ said, " On this rock." This cannot refer to the future or the past, so that the rock — the foundation — was there present, as certainly as that John was present when Peter said, (John xxi.) "And what shall this man dol" Now, both the Foundation and the Builder were present. I will baild my Church on this rock — this foundation: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." " Flesh and blood did not reveal this unto thee, but my Father, who is in Heaven." "And on this rock I will build my Church." This wondrous truth (which the High Priest and elders called Blasphemy — which the Father was first to make known) Peter had the high honour of being the first man clearly and fully to enunciate. This was the foundation laid by Peter, (Acts ii. 36,) on the day of Pentecost, after the descent of the Holy Spirit, when he said, "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ;" and on that day, three thousand souls were built u^oon that rock. They that gladly received his word, (this great truth,) were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls. According to the interpretations of Catholicity, Peter ought to have added, "And let all the house of Israel also know, that you cannot be saved, unless you believe also on and are built upon me; for I am the foun- dation or the rock, on which all who are saved by Christ must be 1 I- 1 1 47 built." Whot joy there would be throughout Papaldom, if they could find in tlie Scriptures such a passage as this. None of the apostles preache'l themselves — they always preached Christ. Thus, when Peter went by the command of the Holy Spirit^ (Acts x.) with the Keys of the Kingdom to open the door of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Gentiles, he told them that God preached " peace by Jesus Christ;" that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost; that though the Jews slew and hanf^ed Him on a tree, yet God raised Him up the third day; that it is He who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead ; and that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins. And, at the close of these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles present ; and they entered into the Church, as " God had granted them repentance unto life;" and they had all remission of sintf, without hearing the first word about Peter being the rock on which they were all built, if the interpretation of Catholicity be true ! When Philip the EvangeUst, by command of the Si^Ixit (Acts ix. 29,) joined himself to the chariot of the Treasurer of Ethiopia, who was reading the 63rd of Isaiah, Philip began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus ; and all that Philip required of mm, in order to his baptism, was that he should believe in his heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. And so with Paul, at Corinth, (Acts xviii. 8,) "Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ : and many of the Corinthians hearing, be- lieved, and were baptized. And in writing to that same Church, he says: " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ ;" and he says (Cor. i. 80, 31,) "But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sane- tifieation and redemption. That according as it is written. He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." And again, (chap. xv. 3,) *' For I delivered unto you that which 1 also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to ^\e Scriptures; and that He was bmied, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures ;" and in the 2nd verse, "By this ye are saved, if ye keep in memoiy what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." Nothing about Peter being the rock in all this — no glorying in him. The glorying was only in the Lord. The Church of Rome, as she freely admits, claims the right and power to curse all who refuse to beUeve any of her dogmas. Now, I would draw her attention to two classes of persons who are cursed by the Apostle Paul, (Gal. i. 8,) " But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed ;" and he repeats, "If any man preach any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed." The other is (1 Cor.xvi. 22,) " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Rome curses those who do preach the same Gospel that Paul preached ; and Rome curses those who do love the Lord Jesus Christ — because they do not also preach faith in all the dogmas of the Church, and because they do not love the Pope. John says, " This is the love of God, that ye keep His commandments ;" and this must therefore be the love of the Pope, that ye keep his commandments. I would say to the Clergy of that Chui'ch, does not the curse of God, through Paul, rest heavily and terribly upon you, for preaching another Gonpel than what he preaohed ? Which of your migsionaries preach Christ as " the only name given tinder heaven by which we must be saved ;" and that "There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus?" Do you not all preach for salvation, that all must believe in the Pope and the dogmas of the Church ; that Mary is Queen of Heaven, &c. ? which Paul oever heard of, and which none of the apostles or evangelists ever knew ; and it is evi- dent that the Lord approved and confirmed what they preached, by "bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost." One word in reference to the term PetrnSf [stone] applied to Simon Peter, and Petra, [rock] the foundation on which the Church was to be built. They are not identical. A stone, of course, may be either small or large — a pebble or a boulder; although always hard, it can be moved. The term Bock gives the idea of immovable solidity; as defined by Worcester — a stone of immense size. Both stone and rock, Petrus and Petia are used figuratively here; but two things so distinct as stone and rocA;, cannot each represent the same thing, without explanation from him who uses them, showing that he means them to be so understood. If the Lord had said " Thou art Peter, [stone] and on this stone I will build my Church, the in* terpretation of CathoUcity might have something like the appearance of a stone to stand upon, while assuming that the identical words had an identity of meaning ; but our Lord would not speak of building even a house upon a stone, [see the close of His sermon on the mount,] much less of building the glorious fabric of His Church — the temple of the living God! the Kingdom of Heaven I upon a stone! but upon a Rock — upon the same Bock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and Paul says that Bock was Christ; and there- fore it is forcing an interpretation upon that passage, which (in making Peter the rock) none but the adherents of the Pope ever received, and which is in opposition to so many plain passages of Scripture ; and to set up a claina, as the Pope does upon this inter- pretation, to be the foundation on which the Church or Kingdom of Heaven is built — is, to say the least of it, as daring an assumption as that of Satan, when he said, All the kingdoms of the world are mine — Lvke iv. 6. Father Ferguson quotes, as do all Romanists, with great emphasis, what Jesus said to Peter, (John xxi.) "Feed my lambs;" "feed my sheep." How did he feed them? If we had had no record of what he did, we might be in doubt about it. Judging from the style of the Pope, we would suppose him to have said in his Epistle, "The Bishops that are among you, I command — as the Vicar of Christ, the Princo of the Apostles, and your Lord the Pope — that you must sub- mit yourselves in all things unto me, and unto my successors in the Holy See at Rome; and feed the flock of God, that is among you, over which I have made you overseers." This is in accordance with the in- terpretation of Catholicity. But how does it accord with Peter, him- self? Let us hear him: (1 Peter, i. 5,) "The elders among you, I exhort, who am also an Eider;" j^mark the modest title he assumes!] "Feed ihe flock of God, that is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." The floqk, of course, includes all, both sheep and lambs, whom Peter was ■^^Plr ;^ ■• 49 enjoined by the Lord Jesus Clirist Himself, to feed; and he lajs, addressing these lambs and sheep, "As new-bom babes, desire the sincere milk of the Wordy that ye may grow thereby." The pure milk of the Word of God xs, therefore, the only food that Peter prescribes to strengthen and mature the flock; and this accords with what the Saviour said, during Hm memorable temptation, (Matt. iv. 4,) " Man shall not live by bread alone, [which only sup- ports the natural life] but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Nothing is said by either Peter or Christ, about this Word being unfit to nourish the sheep and lambs until it had passed through the crucible of Papal interpretation. How long would Popery exist, if the Popes, Bishops and Priests would give the flock nothing but the pure Word of God ? Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am unto you, for the seal of my apostle- ship are ye in the Lord." So that, if Peter be not authority to other churches, he certainly should be to theChurch of Rome; as she claims to be the seat of his supremacy, and from whom she derives her authority; and on which foundation she is built; and therefore, she should especially follow the instructions of Peter given to the flock — the sheep and lambs of the fold. But it may be said, without fe.ir of successful contradiction, that no Church in existence pays so little regard to the commands of Peter, as given in his words and ratified by his example, as this same Church of Rome. It may be well here to ask. Is it not passing strange, that Peter never mentioned the Church at Rome in any of his sermons or Epistles? and addressed both his letters to " the strangers scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithjniia," and "to those who have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God and the Lord Jesus Christ." — 1 Peter i. and 2 Peter, i. Thus both epistles were addressed to all the believers, and he says to them all, (2nd Epistle, chap, i.) "Add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity." "If ye do these things, ye shall never fall; for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Does Catholicity admit that these things are sufiicient to ensure an entrance into Heaven? No; its whole history and all her dogmas answer, "No!" The Church of Rome calls herself the Mother Church, (Holy Mother) and the oldest Church; and she claims that without her en- dorsement, God could not be believed; that His word could not be received as a rule of faith. She has affixed that endorsement, r/U' adds the proviso: It is only the rule of faith as interpreted by Cc\ ;.: licity. While talking once in a friendly way, with one of the OweA Sound Priests, he said; "How can you Protestants know that the Bible is the Word of God?" I answered, "It bears upon it the broad and deep impress of Inspiration; and besides this, the fulfilme.-i of prophecy demonstrates its truth." And I instanced especiallj', the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel in reference to the four king- doms, as delivered in stating and expounding the dream of Nebu- chadnezzar about the wondefrul image, whose brightness was so excellent, and whose form was so terrible. The Priest replied, " But 50 atill, yon cannot know that the Bible is true, without the authority of our Church." "Well, said I, "if this be so, wo have all the authority of the Church of Rome as well as you." This evidently gave the Priest a new idea, and after a moment's silence, ho admitted that we had. This, of course, cannot be disputed. We all admit that the Church of Rome was a Church of Chnst until it apostatized from the truth; and as before this, she had received the Bible as true, wo have, of course, her evidence, if we required it, to establish its truth. And what then becomes of the assertion so persistently made by Romanists, that Protestants cannot make an act of faith, because they do not believe in the dogmas of Catholicity ? As to the claim that the Church of Rome was the first Church, The Acts of the Apostles, which she has endorsed as authentic, tells us that the Church in Jerusalem was the first Church; and that there were Churches in Judea, Samaria, Cesrerea, Antioch, and many other places, before there was an account of there being any in Rome. To show that the Apostle Paul did not recognise the Church of Rome as having a right to dictate to the other Churches, ho says to the Church of the Thessalonians, first, epistle ii. 14, "Ye became followers of the Churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." — Not followers of the Church of Rome. It is claimed by the Papal Rabbles, that because the Church at Rome was once a true Church of Christ, therefore it must always be so. To show that this does not necessarily follow, we have only to instance the Church of Laodacea, Rev. iii. , one of the seven Churches of Asia — the only Churches to whom the Lord Jesus ever sent an epistle. In His letter to this Church, the last addressed. He says: * * Because thou art neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth." It had become to Him an object of loathing and nausea. But He tells them what was their own opinion of themselves: "Thou sayest I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing." To this afl&rmative the Lord answers, No ! and this No outweighs the Yes of the universe ! "Thou knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Laodacea was then a city of great wealth; and in this respect the Church may have had abundance, but she was destitute of the true riches — she had no treasure in heaven. Mr. Ferguson likens me to birds that feed upon carrion, and says "he chooses to fix his attention, not on the sanctity of the body of Christ, which is His Church [that is the Church of Rome,] but on the errors of individuals, here and there within her." I would ask any one who reads this correspondence, if this be true. Have I not from the first, been exposing and condemning the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome as a ivholel Where or when did I select individ- uals as subjects of animadversion as distinct from the general system? Mr. Ferguson likens me also, as mentioned before, to a swine rising from the gutter, and rubbing myself against and besmearing the beau- tiful buttresses of his grand old Church. Did Mr. Ferguson ever hear of the harlot who had become rich by her profession, but whose beauty had gone, and was able by paste and paint to hide the ravages made by vice and dissipation; but a person who was one of the objects of her blandishments, suspecting the deception, rubbed his white handkerchief rather roughly over her face, which, removing the mask, A I 1 51 made bare tb luathBcme blotches that had been concealed; but she, in a furious rage, cursed him fur having daubed her face with his handkerchief, while it was only the handkerchief that had been dirtied by contact with her face. And again, of the man who tried to pass himself through quarantine, by covering up, and thus trying to hide a bad and infectious disease, hoping to escape detection; but when the examining surgeon took off the covering, and inserted a lancet into a suspicious protuberance, a discharge of fetid corruption was the result; but the patient, in a passion, swore that it was the sur- geon's lancet that had bcBuieared him, for ho himself was both hale and sound. And thus, when Jesus tore off the mask from the Scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem, these whited sepulchres, in the madness of their rage, accused him of being in league with Beelzebub, and also a blasphemer, and hated him "because he testified that their deeds were evil." But this did not prevent him from driving the sword of the spirit, the word of God, up to the very hilt into their system of hypocrisy and traditions, established not by the interpretations of Catholicity, of course, but by the interpretations of Judaism; and ho thus made bare "their putrifying sores." One would naturally suppose, that the Chv; "ch of Rome would have paid special attention to Paul's epistle written to that Church. At that time we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, the Jewish Pontiffs, as Mr. Ferguson delights to call them, were in full authority, and claimed with the Priests and Levites and their adherents to be the true church of God; but notwithstanding this assumption, in accord- ance with the saying of Jesus (Matt. xxi. 43) the Svingdom of God was to be taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. The Apostle Paul tells the Roman Christians that the unbelieving Jews, the natural branches of the olive tree, had been broken off, and that contrary to nature, they, the believing Gentiles, to whom he wrote, had been grafted in, and "partook of the root and fatness of the olive tree;" and he says to them in solemn warning "Be not highminded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches take heed that he spare not thee." In despite of this prophetic warning; has not the Church of Rome been highminded? has she not assumed the right to lord it over the whole world, and to crush and destroy all who disputed that right? and although she still exists now as a huge Ecclesiastical Corporation, called the Church of Rome, as did in the time of the apostle, the nominal Jewish Church at Jerusalem, which "had made void the law of God through their traditions," and had been cut off, so has the Roman Church been cut off in consequence of doing as they did in raising the authority of Popes and Councils above the authority of God, as I have clearly shown, and hundreds of Christian writers before me. Paul addressed his Epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called saints ." How many are there in Rome now, to whom this would apply? It was admitted by Archbishop Purcell in his cele- brated debate with Alexander Campbell, (before referred to) that there had been but one saint among the last fifty Popes, and if there was only one among fifty of the Vicars of Christ, the sovereign Pon- tiffs and the successor of St. Peter, and the Holy Fathers, what pro- portion may we presume would be found among the Cardinals, Bishops and Pi'iests, not mentioning the laity? Now, as none were recognized by the apostle Paul as belonging to the Church at Rome, but those 53 ■■■•■ who were beloved of God and called saints, the Churcli of Borne can not bo what it once was, for it now embraces all grades of character, from the reputably pious and moral down to the lowest grade of vice and profligacy, providing they continue to profess to adhere to the dogmas of the Church. Whoever heard of even a murderer being ex- communicated from the Church, if he still professed to be a Catholic and was willing to listen to the Priest; and on the other side, no matter how holy and blameless a man may be, though he loves God and keeps his commandments, if he will not submit to the authority of the Church, she hurls rigainsthim excommunic? tion and damnation. I have referred before to the worshipping of saints, and especially of Mary, for while Peter is the foundation, Mary is the keystone of the Papal arch; and the system might properly be called Maryanity in- stead of Christianity, as there is far more honor given to Mary than to Christ. Now, in order to show how little warrant this has in the Scriptures, which the Romish Church professes to believe, I shall examine all the passages, where Mary's name is mentioned after the birth of her Jirst-hovn son (first-born always implies that there are others born after). Luke ii., we are told, the shepherds came with haste to Bethlehem, after they had seen the vision of angels; and they found Joseph and Mary, and the babe lying in a manger, and they told what things were told them concerning this child. But Mary kept all the3e things and pondered them in her heart. And when His parents brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord, Simeon, an old prophet, took Him in His arms, and blessed Him, anq. said unto Mary His mother, "This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against. Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul, also, that the thought* of many hearts may be revealed;" and 41st verse, we are told that His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when Jesus was twelve years old, they went as at other times, " And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the Child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and Joseph and His mother knew not of it. After three days they found Him, and His mother said unto him. Why hast Thou thus dealt with us 1 behold Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing; and He replied. How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them; but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. " Matt. xii. 47: "Then said one unto Him, Behold Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring uo speak with Thee." He an- swered, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren] And He stretched forth His hand tt wards His disciples, and said. Behold my mother and my brethren! Fo' whoever shall do the will of my Father Avho is in Heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." See also Mark iii. 31, 38; Matt. xiii. 55: "Is not this the carpenter^s son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and His sisters, are they not all with us?" It is evident from this, and from Mark vi. 3, that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and daughters — it is not said how many. But the dogmas of Catholicism deny this, and look upon it as horrid impiety to believe in what is stated in these passages to be true. Luke viii. 21 : * ' My mother and my brethren ax e those who hear the word of God, and keep it." 1 '■ 53 \ ' VI lAxke xi. 37; "A certain woman of the company lifted ap her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the papa which Thou has. sucked. But He said, Yea, rather blesied are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." In this passage, we have incipient Maryulity rebuked. The Lord foresaw what would be the interpretation of Catholicity in reference to this matter, and that tlie creature would be honored above the Creator; and these sayings of His were doubtless recorded to leave those who did it without ex- cuse. To show the force of the passage as above, ^'rather blessed/' &c., we may refer to Luke xviii. 14, where the Pharisee and Publican are introduced — the one a self-righteous professor, the other a humble publican; and Jesus decided their comparative characters by saying, ''This man (the publican) went down to his house, justified rather than the other." And it is evident, that Mary never had the remotest thought of assuming any authority in the Kingdom of Heaven; and it would be well for Catholics to duly consider her in- junction to the servants at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, "What- ever He saith unto you, do it." This is the only command of hers on record; and this is just in accordance with the command of the Father, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the only command given by Him in an audible tone to man, relating to Jesus, (Matt, xvii.) "This is my beloved Son: hear ye Hii.i." The command of His mother had reference to a particular circumstance, and wr.3 given to certain individuals; while the command of His Father is of uni- versal obligation, embracing all nations and generations of men. The last words spoken by Jesus in reference to His mother, (John xix. 26, 27,) were while He was suffering the agony of crucifixion, and when the saying of the good old Simeon was fulfilled, (Luke ii. 35,) "A sword shall pierce through thine own soul, also." Who can conceive the intense agony of that mother diiring those fearful three hours, while "that holy thing born of her, and called the Son of God," hung upon the cross] second only to the agony of that Son, whose "soni was made [as well as his body] an offering for sin." It was then that Jesus, ' ' seeing His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved. He said unto His mother: Woman, behold thy son! Then said He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." What a glorious mark of confidence in John, to select him as the future protector of His mother! Doubtless, that mother saw her Son after His resurrection; but we have no record of their meeting, and the last time that Mary is mentioned in the Scriptures, is Acta i. 14: "These all continued [that is, the apostles] with one accord, ia prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." Now, I would ask, Is there any thing in any or in all these passages combined, that give, the least countenance to the interpretations of Catholicity in reference to Mary, as authorising the Pope to crown and proclaim her Queen of Heaven, and the universal mediator between mankind and her Sou Jesus. Paul says (1 Tim. ii. 8,) "There is one God, and one Medi- ator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus: Who gave Him- self a ransom for all;" and can the force of absurdity farther go, than to say that a mediator is required between man and his Mcdiator'i Mary said of herself, (Luke i. 48,) "From henceforth all geuerationa flhpll call me blessed;" and the angel ^aid, (28th verse) " Hail! thou ■■■'wmm^^^W' 54 that art highly farored; the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." And both of these sayings, like all thQ utterances of the Spirit of God, are eternally true. But so far as relates to the glory and blessedness of Heaven, hers does not exceed that of ''those who hear the Word of God, and keep it." Now let us consider some of the things that are said in the Law and in 'he Prophets, and the Psalms, and in the New Testament, con- cerning Jesus, by which we shall see the position which He occupies in the Church and the Universe. Gen. xviii, 22: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Deut. xviii.: "A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me, (Moses) Him shall ye hear." Psalms cii. 25, quoted by Paul in Hebrews i. : "Of old Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, and the Heavens are the works of Thine hands; and again. Let all the angels of God wor- ship Him." Isaiah vii. 14: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a i^on, and shall call his name Immanuel, which is, God with us." Isaiah ix. 6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is give' and the Government shall be on his shoulders, and his name shall L called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his Government and Power there shall be no end; upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever." Isa. liii.; "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our trans- gressions, and bruised for our iniquities." These passages may suffice from the Old Testament, and we shall see how they are sustained and illustrated in the New: John i. : "In the beginnin'7 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory — the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Matt. iii. 16, 17: "And Jesus, when He was = .ptized, went straightway up out of the water, and lo! the Heavens were opened untn Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him. And lol a voice from Heaven, saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It n'ay be here observed, that this is the first time that the whole God- head was made known to man. The Father audibly, and the Son and the Holy Spirit visibly present. In the xvii chapter, on the Mount of Transfiguration, in presence of Moses and Elijah, these words were repeated by the Father, with the addition, " Hear ye Him." Matt. xxv. 21: "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations." Matt, xxviii. 18: " All power is given unto me in Heaven and lij earth." Heb. i. : " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son; whom He hath appointed heir of all things; by whom, also He made the worlds: Who, being the bright- ness of His glory, and the express image of His person, after he had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Col. i. 14: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature." 1 Pet. ii. 24 — Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." i 55 '! ? T Y John i. 29, "Behold the Lamb of Qod, which taketh away the lin of the world." Rev. i. 8, "I am the beginning and ending, — the Al- mighty. " Now, I would ask, in the face of these passages, will any priest dare to say, that Mary and Jesus occupy the same position relatively in the Church of Rome that they do in the Scriptures ? Nothing is said of Mary, that places her in any other position than that of a hisfhly-favored woman, without any investment of authority in the Church on earth or in heaven, or of having any influence or control over the salvation of any human being. But Christ is made known as the Creator, the Redeemer, Saviour and Judge of his people, and as the only name given under heaven, among men whereby we can be saved; and every individual is personally accountable to Him, for we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. And because this is so, every individual is addressed, "Preach the Gospel to every creature, He that belioveth and is baptised, shall be saved. And to each individual in each of the seven Churches of Asia" (Rev. ii. 3), Jesus says, "He that hath an ear, 'ot him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches." As interpreted by Catholicity, He ought to have added, that "all shall be damned who have not ears to hear what the Pope says unto the Churches; for to him as my Vicar, is the ultimate appeal in all matters of right and wrong. " Mr. Ferguson, at the close of his letter, sneers at what he calls my little pop-gun, which he says, seems to be the only weapon in my armoury. I shall leave an intelligent public to decide as to the com- parative power and efficiency of the weapons, employed by him and me in the present controversy. He also says in his letter " I am now done with you, and intend to take no more notice of anything yon may address to me." Nothwithstanding this resolution, he has never- theless forgotten, or changed it so far, as to pour forth editorially in the Canadian Freeman — ^bless the mark! of the 6th and 14th April, several columns of abuse of me and Protestantism generally, which we give below, in order that the public, other than Catholics, may have an opportunity of admiring his flourish of trumpets, under cover of which he comes up to "kick against the goads," His first article is imderthe caption "Tristram Shandy again," and is as follows: "TRISTRAM SHANDY" AGAIN. (From the "Canadian Freeman," [Catholic Paper] April Qth, 1871.) Some weeks ago, Father Ferguson, of this city, delivered a Lectur« in the Town Hall, Owen Sound, — the subject being "Infallibility." As many of the audience were Protestants, the Rev. gentleman, avoiding controversy, confined himself to a simple statement of the Catholic theory, and the scriptural and other grounds upon which that theory is based. At the close of the address, he very naturally adverted to the present afflicted condition of the Holy Father, and protested energetically against the injustice perpetrated upon him. Of course, such a Lecture was little likely to pass unchallenged, and as might be expected, a writer — who is by religious profession what they call a Disciple or Campbellite — made a very curious reply to it in the Owen Sound Times. The reasoning of the gentleman we may, perhaps, notice hereafter. For the present, we draw attention to a grave and shameful crime committed by him towards the end of his communication. ii 66 In opposition to tho character for goodness claimed for the present Sovereign Pontiff, this northern advocate of Protestantism says : — "In order to show you the character of Pope Pius, whom Mr. Fer- guson called 'that kind and genial old man, whom everybody loves,' I shall ask you, Mr. Editor, to copy the following paternal address to Victor Emmanuel." And then he publishes — what do our readers think? The real letters of excommunication issued against that un- fortunate monarch? Not at all! Truth never yet sufficed for the needs of such controversy; but a tirade of mingled obscenity and blasphemy, concocted by a profligate Protestant minister named Sterne, and published more than one hundred years ago in a novel now called " Tristram Shandy." Hereupon, Father Ferguson wrote to the paper, giving the history of the vile production, and the date and page of the book in which it was to be found, and concluded a very civil letter by charitably ex- pressing his opinion that only a mistake had been made, and the gentleman's scholarship — not his honesty — was at fault. This, one Would have thought, was sufficient ; especially as the same shameful forgery had been contradicted, aud its publication handsomely apolo- gized for in the Hamilton papers of a week or two before. But what think our readers did this advocate of truth-loving Protestantism do in the circumstances we have described ? Avow his mistake, and beg pardon for it ? By no manner of means. In reply, he says in sub- stance, that though he took up " Tristram Shandy" about forty years ago, yet he found it a stupid book ; did not read it, and really does not know whether the curse, as he calls it, is there ! What amiable, child-like innocence! But when he was shown that through its means, he had been led to make a grossly unjust charge against the Head of the Catholic Church, is it unreasonable to say it was his plain duty, in spite of the insult to a fastidious taste, to take up the book again, and examine at least that passage, and then own like a man, that he had made a mistake, and was sorry for it ? Common decency required this much. But this is not the worst feature in this foul proceeding. He wrote the letter with a full knowledge, according to his own declaration, that the "curse" had already been ascribed to Sterne; for he tells us, in his defence, that he has read with great care the controversy be- tween Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, and Alexander Campbell, and that in that discussion the prelate had shown the real paternity of the wicked forgery. So that he is branded by his own confes- sion, with the guilt of having ascribed to a living Pope writing to a living King, a production which thirty years ago was shown to be the work of a half-infidel Protestant minister. Verily, holy Protes- tantism is hard up when it needs such defence, and glories in such defenders ! The explanation which follows this statement in his letter is too good to be unnoticed. He is not acquainted with such works as Tris- tram Shandy. He thinks it enough to read the Bible ! All truth is there, and there is no need to go beyond it! This — let our readers not laugh — is actually the kind of reason, he assigns for not knowing the real authorship of the iniquitous lie, though a moment before he admitted he did know it. May we not exclaim: "O Sacred Book, what villianies are perpetrated in thy naihe, what lies told !" We ask this writer, Jwas it in the Bible fyou found this ruffianly insult to o 67 :\ n. decency and religion which you ascribed to the Pope ? Of a certainty it is not there; therefore you do read other books, and your defence is a piece of most hypocritical cant, calculated to bring contempt upon both the Bible and all religious profession. Does it not recall the vwtuovsness of Gloster in Richard III. , "But then I sigh, and with a piece of scripture, Tell them" — a great lie upon the Pope.* But we are not yet done. He has seen the same curse in the Cin- cinnati Christian. (?) Revieio, in the Hamilton Spectator, and has heard that the London Times published it with an editorial of " scathing sarcasm." Not a doubt of it. But is not a lie a lie still, though twenty or twenty thousand times told ? And does not each telling of it by those conscious of its nature, instead of transmuting it into truth, only aggravate indefinitely the guilt of those who circulate it? No doubt this writer has seen it in the places he describes. We ourselves have seen it in the Owen Sound Times, in the original home in Tris- tram Shandy, and we know not in how many places beside; and wo expect to see it again, if we live, in as many moie: for we know that controversialists — of the disreputable character we are now dealing with — cannot afford to let it die. It is a Godsend — or, far more cor- rectly, a Devilsend, — for such as are anxious for the fame of seeing their name in print, who are malicious enough to wish it true, too illiterate to know whether it is or not, and so blindly opposed to the Catholic Church, that no evidence can change their opinions, even on facts like this, which they can see with their eyes. We now come to the last and most iniquitous feature of this con- troversy. He asks us to produce a real act of excommunication, and show wherein it diflfers from the forgery; and says Mr. Campbell, in dispute with the Bishop, got over the difficulty, by affirming that he had many others of a like kind. (If he had, would he not 1. ave been glad to produce them? The greatest cheat on the street woald rather have a good bill than a bad one only the latter is so much cheaper,) — and that at all events, it is only an echo of the many anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent. Now, let us reflect a moment upon this request, and its relation to the whole matter in hand. May we not state the case thus: — Protestant Controversialist — ''I admit I cannot make good my charge against Pius IX. , for I am sorry to see it was not he at all, but a profligate minister of one of our own sects, that perpetrated the enormity. I admit I am rather in a tight place, but then I am a great fellow, and you — you are onlj a Papist, and used to thi« kind of thing. Could you not help me out of the difficulty ] You are not guilty of what I have charged upon you; but couldn't you confess to something equally bad. You are not the blasphemers I said; but may be you are murderers, or adulterers, or (in no very loud voice) forgers. Any decent crime, that is enormous enough to suit the Protestant taste for scandal, will do. Own up like a man, and get me out of this fix." This is not satire, but a plain statement in familiar language of the ♦Will the reader please turn to my first letter in reply to Mr. Ferguson, and see there what I said about the Bible as compared with other booksj and he will be able to appreciate the foul misrepresentation and abuse contained in the above passage. H mmmim ;M \d defence this writer makes for publishing as a letter of the Pope's, a Protestant minister's forgery. And we can do nothing for him. The annals of eighteen centuries of Catholicity furnish nothing to match it. It stands alone, of special baseness, obscene and blasphemous, a lie, without a shred of truth or verisimilitude either in it, or intended to be in it; a coarse joke of a clever bad man, which uoither the piety of the Christian (f) Review nor the respectability of the Hamilton ^ectator,* nor the scholarship of the London Tim.es, can change from its original character of being a pure fabrication, or in Dr. Johnson's plain speech, a lie, sir, a lie, and there's an end on't. Having now given the history of this precious document, and the defence set up for it, we ask our Owen Sound contemporary, who allowed it to appear in his columns, what he is going to do about itl The issuer of a forged paper, knowing it to be forged, is as guilty as the original forger, — and no respectable journalist can too soon purge himself of all appearance of complicity in so nefarious a proceeding. Here we leave it. In Mr. Ferguson's first Letter in reference to the above curse, to the Owen Sound Times, he begins: "Will you allow me a small space in your columns, that I may correct a very ridiculous blunder your last week's correspondent about Infallibility fell into;" but in his editorial above, writing for Catholics only, he calls it " a grave and shameful crime." Now, if it were a grave and shameful crime, it was surely a ridiculo'us blunder in Mr. F. to describe it as he did at first ; and tS. it were only a ridiculous blunder, as he described it then, it is surely a grave and shameful crime, for the purpose of traducing on opponent, to describe it as he does now. Which horn of the dilemma will you take, Mr. Ferguson ? I would here ask: Why does Mr. Ferguson lower himself so much as to hurl the thunder of his heavy artillery "against my poor pop- gun?" why does he not attack the thunderer of the London TimeSy and call upon him to tell the world that he was sorry for the grave and shameful crime of publishing the invention of Sterne as the veritable curse of Pope Pius against the King of Italy? In doing this, he would have a foeman worthy of his steel. But Mr. Fer- guson's modesty is probably too great for this, as was shown by his allowing himself to be rolled up and put into the handkerchief of that Ecclesiastical Giant, that the reader will remember about. The Freeman says that I said Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Archbishop PurceU, got over the difficulty by affirming that he had many others of a hke kind as the curse he read. The reader may remember that I said, in my reply to Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Campbell said: "I quote this from one of the newspapers of the day. I have several such cases in the books around me; but they are some two or three centwries old, and in foreign countries, and therefore I select this modem one." Mr. Campbell had no difficulty to get over here. He simply stated a fact, which the Archbishop did not dare to dispute, that he had several curses of the same kind in books, some two or three hundred years old. '^The Hamilton Spectator handsomely apologized in his next issue, to Father Heenan, for this publication, and thanked the Very Rev. gentleman for pointing out the mistake ; and the Owen Sound writer could hardly help knowing this. y Mm } M 4 ^ •i; ■!^; 89 Mr. Ferguson says, that the last and most iniquitous feature of this controversy, is my asking him to produce a real act of excom- munication. Can the reader imagine a more absurd charge than this? What a daring and unpardonable crime it was for me to ask for an authentic copy of a public document issued and published by the Pope, against a King whom he had excommunicated! In connection with the "handsome apology" made by the Hamil- ton Spectator, the editor stated that Father Heenan had promised to give him a genuine copy of the real curse, and which the editor prom- ised to publish. Whether the editor had nusunderstood the Priest, or whether the Priest had made a promise unadvisedly, which he dared not keep, is a matter which I shall not pretend to decide ; but the copy, I understand, was not given, and therefore not published. But who but Father Ferguson ever dreamed of it being a heinous offence for the editor to ask for it? Now, all the " Tristram Shandy" dust, that Mr. Ferguson has raised, will not prevent the public from believing that the real curse, if not the one published in the Times, is at least so like it, that he dare not publish it; and what he says about my wishing him to help me out of the difficulty, is (to use a word that I often heard when a child) nothing but balderdash; and I now repeat the *' heinous offence," in saying again, Give us the true curse, and set the matter at rest. The next article in reference to this controversy is entitled " Th* Primacy." THE PRIMACY. (From the "Canadian Freeman," [Catholic Paper} April 13th, 1871.^ Last week we gave a specimen of the modes adopted by a certain class of Protestant writers, to prejudice the public mind against thd Head of the Church. The True Witness would call it the mode of the "lie direct.'' These writers stir up the reeking cesspools into which a half-infidel Protestant minister discharged the foul and blas- phemous imaginings of a mind that very likely hated Christianity cordially, and then would have the world believe that the noisome stenches are the atmosphere of the Church. The Devil, in Heaven, once wished to be God, or like to Him; and now on the earth, unable to put off the marks and tokens of ruin that cling round him, he would fain put himself in the place of the Almighty Goodness, and cast upon It the contempt and hatred that cannot but be felt for his fallen and degraded estate. So heresy, when it has given birth to monsters of which it is ashamed, would like to fix their paternity on the Church. We have exposed one such attempt, and now go on to a duty of a like kind. Papal Infallibility is the necessary corrollary of the Primacy. Admit the latter, and the former follows as naturally as the shadow follows the body which throws it. This we will show in our next issue. For the present, let us consider an argument from our northern light, directed against that Primacy in these words: "We go to the New Testament, and we find there a deed of gift recorded to Peter, of the Keys of the Kingdom; but we do not find any record there of their transfer to the Pope of Borne, or anybody else, and therefore we cannot admit his title." .,.,.v. mm mm ■M «o i This is the fallacy we wish to expose, not because it is advanced by this obscure objector, but because it is a common means ^y which even earnest Protestants deceive themselves. Let us illustrate its logical value by a precisely similar reasoning: — ** We go to the New Testament, and find there evidence of the existence of Peter, but we find no record of his death ; therefore, we cannot admit that he is dead, and we are right in speaking of the authority of Peter as one still alive." How will this conclusion be accepted ? Very much, we fear, after the manner of a conclusion by one of the scientific tailors of Lapata — that is, it would be rightly laughed at. Or, let us take a more striking illustration. We go again to the New Testament, and we find there no mention of either Protestants or Protestantism, or any of its various divisions; therefore we cannot admit that there is such a thing upon the earth at all. If, now, rely- ing upon this conclusion, we sally out into the streets, and in joy of such a singular discovery, clap our hands and exclaim that there is not, and never was, and never will be, such an absurdity as Pro- testantism, we fancy we would be stopped as a madman by the first person that deigned to notice our ravings. ' * Open your eyes, look round and see," would be the natural, spontaneous remark of any one of sense at sight of such an illusion. But in this case we would be only following out with a rigid logic the teachings of that principle, which is appealed to as unanswerable, as simply criishing our attempts at answer, namely, that what is not found in the New Testament must not be admitted.* But we suppose our objector will meet the case by the explanation that though the word Protestant is not found in the Holy Book, the principles upon which it rests are there so plainly evident, that there is no one but may see them. This is the only way out of the difficulty he has imprudently created for himself, and our having forced him to follow that way is just all w^e wanted. For thereby he admits that the Holy Scriptures teach principles, the right or wrong understanding of, and acting upon, which, give rise to true or false systems of religion. He is then obliged to yield the vantage ground he ignorantly thought he had gained over us, and is forced to get off his grand stilts and walk like an ordinary mortal, upon the ground. He is bound to contend, and show that his intelligence of these principles is the only true and correct one, and that everybody else — and that is about a million to one — has entirely mistaken the meaning of the sacred word. This is rather harder work than he proposed to himself, we fancy. Having now shown the utter untenableness of the position assumed by this man, we dismiss him for the present, and address ourselves to he not over difficult task of showing the reasons — irresistible to i ^je who honestly and intelligently admit the authority of the Bible — why we hold the Primacy of the Pope, and as a consequence, his Infallibility. Is there anything in the four Gospels more explicitly or carefully set forth than the fact that Christ instituted a Church 1 — *' Upon this rock I will build my Church." Is there any mistaking the meaning of this clear statement ? We fancy not. Well, a Church, which is a congregation of many in order to be a Church, not churcheSf # This rigid logic amounts to this : Some things exist that are not men- tioned in the New Testament; Protestantism is one of those tbinss — therefor* Popery is true ! t How admirable and oonvinoing ! I- 61 ^ 1 must hare a Head. Everything that has life has a head, from the lowliest thing that creeps, up to man — the king of visible creation. There is a central cell, from which all development begins, even in plants and trees. Every organization, from that of a village council up to the great law-making Assembly of the nation, is incomplete, only inchoative until it has a head appointed in its chairman or speaker. Every republic, empire, kingdom — all must have a head, or they are only a mob. And this head, for the very reason that it is a head, must not be two or more, but only one. A five-legged animal would draw a whole city to look at ib as a wonder; but a two-headed creature would make a fortune for many Bamums. Why? Because it would be contrary to all our perceptions of the Itiws of God, as manifested in the mighty creation — from the one* sun, whose attraction controls and regulates the movements of all the heavenly bodies, down to the one king, or emperor, or president, or to the one father presiding and ruling in the family, and still further to the head which com- pletes the individual body, and contains in itself the organs of sight, smell, hearing, &c. Bat why pursue the thought at needless length? Does not common sense, instinct, answer that a headless, or a two- headed body is such a monstrosity, a blot on the creation, a thing at which men would shudder, as indicating the wrath of the Creator. We have very cogent reasons, then, for thinking, antecedently to any examination into the constitution of the Church, that she, like all the rest of the Divine Founder's works, has one Head. She is the perfection of the visible creation, and nmst conform to its laws. And what we expect, we find at the very first glance into the Sacred Book: "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build ray Church, and I ■will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." "Feed my lambs;" ** feed my sheep." Here is Headship expressed with a clear- ness and an abundance of enforcement that shames even scepticism into submission. The holder of the keys can keep ail out, or let all in; or exercise his discretion. The possessor of the food is supreme — for he can starve his subjects into submission. No prince or potentate ever was possessed of such unquestioned supremacy, As is symbolized by the grant to Peter of the whole food upon which the Church is to subsist. The most despotic monarchs of the East in ancient times, held a power inferior in its kind to this, over their subjects. They never could stop the earth from producing its fruits, nor the forest nor the sea from yielding each its contribution of food; and the people could live in spite of them. But in the life that is to be led in the Church — that supernatural higher life of grace, which Jesus originated, and the Church continues — the very food on which such life is to be sustained, nourished and perfected, was put entirely into Peter's hand, by the absolute, unconditional promise, implied in the order, "Feed my lambs;" "feed my sheep;" and all this by Jesus Christ Himself. And this prerogative of Peter, which we call rightly, the Primacy, as it began with the Church — or, to speak more correctly, as the Church began with it — so also, perseveres to the end, because it belongs to the essence of her constitution; is, indeed, the Rock upon which she was built by Divine hands, to defy and master the power or gates of hell. But the Church, in her essential consti- tution, remains to the end of time, according to the promise, "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." The power of the Keys, then, of which the deed of gift to Peter is found recorded 62 I I in the New Testament, descends necessarily to his successor; and it is as absurd to say that it does not, because the Testament does not mention the transfer, which could only occur after the great Apostle's death, about which there is not a word in the Bible, as it would be to argue that all the apostles, except James of Jerusalem, are still alive, because the Gospels, and Epistles, and Acts are silent about their deaths. How do we know they are not still alive 1 By one of two ways — and only two. By tradition, that tells of the factj or by an admission of the universal law of mortality, to which they, like the rest of men were subject. Now both these informants upon which we so securely and undoubtingly rely, when they attest the demise of the Apostles, also attest the transfer of the power of the Keys. This is not the place to speak of tradition, since our scope conhnes us to the Scriptures. But if the universality of the law of death is enough to convince us that men who lived eighteen hundred years ago, are not alive now; why should not the universality of the law by which men in office yield up their power to their successor — and in its way the law of transmission of power is as universal as death — be reason enough to convice us that the office to which St. Peter was raised, not for his own sake but for the sake of the world, has descended to his successor? What is a sufficiently reliable informant in one case ought certainly to be, and is logically, a sufficiently reliable informant in the other. Thus, then, the matter btands. The Holy Scriptures tell us that Peter once lived, but say nothing about his death. We believe and are sure that he is dead, because of our belief in the universal law of mortality. They tell us that he held an office of importance in the Church, that was to endure to the end of time, but say nothing about transmitting that office to a siiccessor. But we believe and are sure he did so transmit it, because the law of such transmission is in its way as universal as the law of death- Here we leave the question for the present in ih':, full assurance, that our opponent will have either to give up his principle, or, what is not very likely, become a firm be- liever in the Primacy of the Successor of Peter. The writer quotes from my reply to Mr. Spencer, what I say about the deed of gift in the New Testament of the Keys to Peter; but which says nothing of their transfer to any other person. See the passage in full in above letter. He says: ' ' Let us illustrate its logical value by a precisely similar reasoning. We go to the New Testament, and find evidence there of the existence of Peter, but we find no evidence of his death; therefore, we cannot admit that he is dead, and \k 9 are right in speaking of the authority of Peter as one still alive. How will this conclusion be accepted ?" And he again repeats that "the Scriptures say nothing about his death;" and again to make it more sure, he says "there is not a loordin the Bible about his death." Has this Priest ever read what the Lord said to Peter, at the sea of Tiberias? (John xxi, 18,) "When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldst; but when thou shaPj be old, thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldst not.;" and John adds, " This gpake He, showing by what death he should glorify God." And has he ever read what Peter himself says? — (2nd Epistle, i. 14, 15,) "Knowing that shortly T maRtput off this my tdbemach, even as tiie i i. --J r 4 T r ■>** .,' I- . 6S Lord JesuB Christ hath shewred me : I will endeavor that ye may b« able, after my decease, to have these thinpfs in remembrance." I do not think that this Priest gives much evidence of having thesa things in remembrance: and does it not seem strange, that bo intense a Peterite as he professes to be, should be so ignorant of what Peter has written, although he is so well posted up in the matter of "Tris- tram Shandy." If there had been as much said in the Scriptures about Peter's mccfissors, as there is about Peter's death, there could then have been no dispute about his having successors; but even then the Popes could not have established their claim to be those successors unless they had been specially named as such. If 1 eter had said, I shall endeavor after my decease that the Bishops of the Church of Home who are to be my successors, may have all these things in remem- brance, that they may feed the sheep and the lambs of the Lord Jesus; and to whom are to descend through all ages the Keys of the King- dom of Heaven; and who shall, as an inalienable privilege of their office, always be preserved "free from doctrinal error," then I would be, as this writer expresses it, "a firm believer in the Primacy of the successor of Peter;" and as in duty bound, listen to the voice of the Pope, as to the voice of God. This writer observes, "This is not the place to speak of tradition, since our scope confines us to the Scriptures." He has several times, during this controversy, referred to my want of scholarship, because I was not familiar with " Tristram Shandy;" but I have clearly shown — first, in the matter of the Jewish Hie^h Priests being preserved from doctrinal error; and now, in reference to the death of Peter; that he is very deficient indeed in Biblical scholarship ; and I would advise him to give up writing about a book of which he evidently knows so little. Judging from my experience. Catholics, both Priests and people, are as a general rule, but very partially acquainted with the Scriptures, excepting those passages which they claim as giving supreme power to Peter and the Pope: " I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom;" "Upon this rock I will build my Church;" "Feed my sheep," sScc; and these they have constantly upon the nibs of their pens or the end of their tongues, as if they contained the Alpha and Omega of the Word of God. Mr. Ferguson further says, " We believe and are sure that Peter did transmit' his oflice, because we know that the law of such trans- mission, in its way, is as sure, as universal as the law of death;" but he does not tell us, that all constitutions of government requiring a head — municipal, republican, and monarchical — always provide for, and regulate the appointment of a successor, when the incumbent dies, or the term of office expires; but where does the Christian con- stitution provide for a successor to Peter ? Where does it say in the Scriptures, even of Peter, that he was the head of the body, the Church. This title is given only to Christ, (Col. i. 18, 19,) "And He is the Head of the body, the Church. It pleased the Father, that in Him should all fulness dwell;" (Eph. i. 22) "And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church;" and it is little short of blasphemy to give that glorious title, even to Peter. Christ has no successor in any of His ofi&ces, much less as Head of the Church. As to how Peter used the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven— in my poem on that subject I think the matter is made 64 ' plain, and is in accordance with the views of many thorough Bible students; and I think it will yet be accepted as the only true explan- ation of the matter. In the gift of the Keys, Peter possessed what was never possessed by any human being, before or since: "I will give thee the Keys." It was Peter who opened the door of the King- dom to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, when he said, ** Repent and be baptised for remission of sins/' and the same day 3000 of those who asked what they should do, repented and were baptised, and were added to the congregation of believers. And it was Peter who was Bent for by express command from God, by his angel, to come to Csesarea to the house of Cornelius, (Acts x.) to open the door of ihfi Kingdom to the Gentiles; and neither the Jewish nor Gentile door has ever since been shut, and all believing penitents may enter in the same way, and as Paul tells the Colossiaus (chap, i.) "be translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God's dear Son." The Roman Catholic's idea of the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Church, is that of a grand hierarchy, with the Pope as supreme head, and from him spreading out and extending through Cardinals, Arch- bishops, Bishops, Vicar-Generals, Abbots, Inquisitors, Priests, Monks, Friars, &c., &c., embracing the Laity, of course, as the sub- strata of the institution. Now, I would observe, that with the ex- ception of Bishops, there was not one of the above functionaries in existence at the time of the apostles, in the Church of Christ; they were all quite unknown to those who established that Church among the nations of the earth, through "the power of the Holy Spirit sent down from Heaven;" and therefore, it follows, as a logical induction, which no priestly arrogance or assumption can' set aside, that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ. If there had been any of the above functionaries among the brethren to whom Peter wrote, would he not have mentioned them ? He addresses them collectively and individually, as each accountable individually to God ; and tells them "they had been as sheep going astray, but were now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls." And the Lord Jesus addressed each of the seven Churches of Asia, (Rev. ii. and iii. chap.) as individually responsible to Him- self only; and never intimated that there was any other authority outside of each particular congregation, to whom they were to give an account. And when Paul writes to the various Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesua, Philippi, &c., &c., he never tells any of them that they were amenable to, or under the control of the Church of Rome, or any other ecclesiastical authority, existing as such, in any other Church or congi'egation. And again, Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, (chap, iv.) tells them that " Christ, who ascended above all the heavens, that He may fill all things, gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelist some Pastors and Teachers, for perfecting of the saints ; for the wo- of the ministry; for the building up of the body of Christ." But tl interpretation of Catholicity tells us that He gave some Popes, some Cardinals, some Legates, some Archbishops, some Vicara- general, some Abbots, some Inquisitors, and many Monks, Friars, Abbesses, Priests and Nuns, and some OEcumenical Councils, and a great many dead Patron Saints, for building up the body of the Holy Mother at Rome, which they all assume to be the body or Church of Christ. Paul tells us, (which I would especially note) those whom 65 ho mentions were given expressly for the perfecting of the saints, and I would ask, how many saints aro there in the Chinch of E.ome I If what Archbishop Purcell says is tho case, which I before referred to, that there was onfy one among tho last tifty Popes, where will yoa find the saints to be perfected f Paul also tells us in the same chapter, that there is " one body, one Spirit^ one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," to which the interpretation of Catholicity adds, "One Virgin Mary, who is Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, to whom the prayers of all the faithful most con- stantly ascend." In addition to the title "Roman Church," the people of the Papacy delight to speak of the "Holy Catholic Church" and the "Holy Apostolic Church." W" do not read of any such institutions in the Scriptures. These names are no doubt supposed to be more appropriate and more august than the titles that the Holy Spirit has given, viz.: "Church of Christ" and "Church of God;" (Acts XX. 28,) "Feed the Church of (fvd, which He has purchased with His own blood;" (Rom. xvi. 16,) "The Churches of Christ salute you." Are there any adjectives in any of the vocabularies of earth that can equal in dignity and glory the terms " Church of Christ," "Church of God?" No apostle would have dared to degrade it by calling it the Apostolic Church; and with what indignant surprise would Peter and Paul and John have put down such an expression. Mr. Ferguson, "according to the wisdom given to him" by tho interpretations of Catholicity, tells us, in the article on the Primacy, that the command, "Feed my sheep," «&c., placed in Peter's hands, and through him in the hands of the Popes, all the spiritual food of the Church of Christ; and as the holder of this food, the Pope can starve his subjects into submission. Starve them into submission? yes, crush them with the iron heel of spiritual despotism ! This he did in former times, when he had kings to hold his stirrups while he mounted his horse. Pope Pius has tried to do the same with his Italian sub- jects, who, under the lead of Victor Emmanuel, have thrown off his yoke; and he is now trying to starve Dr. Dollinger, as his predecessor did, to starve Dr. Luther, and it will be no doubt with a similar result, — thus claiming for the Pope the whole spiritual food of the Church, which he can lock up at pleasure. This almost out-Popes the Pope himself, who can scarcely be so intoxicated with the incense of adulation offered him by his subjects, as really to think this. Christ gave the command to Peter, and Peter gave the same command to the Elders of the Churches to whom he wrote; and Paul gave the same command to the Elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx.) And Paul tells the Corinthians (2 Cor. xi.), that upon him came the care of all the Churches. Could Peter, if he had been alive at this time, or the Bishop of Rome, have prevented those Churches of which Panl had the care, if they had so willed it, from receiving any spiritual food — that is, prevent them from receiving the sincere milk of the "Word, that they might grow thereby. Who can imagine a dogma more terribly dishonoring to Christ, and degrading to His Church, than that which declares that none of the treasures of His grace, in anv age, since His ascension, could be received by any of His dis- cL js, except as given and distributed through the hands of the Popes; many of whom, as Archibishop Purcel expresses it, were so wicked that he should not be surprised to find that they are in Hell! Let no CathoUc say that this is a Protestant lie, for it is published ee J over Ilia, own signature, and was uttered in the presence of hundreds at Cincinnati. The Apostle James says, (chap. i. 5,) "If any ipan lack wisdom, let him ask of God, -v'ho giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him; bnt let him ask in faith." But the Apostle forgot to add, "He must ask, believing in the Infallibility of the successors of Peter at Rome; for all the food that is required to sustain the spiritual life of the disciples is put by Christ into their hands, and unless you receive it through them, you must starve." I was in conversation once, with an acquaintance who had turned Roman Catholic, and he said he was convinced, after years of readii^ and reflection, that the evidence in favor of the Church of Rome being the true Church, far outweighed that of every other; and theie- f ore he became convin ced that she was the true Church, and there- fore, that all her dogmas were true; and upon this ground he received them all, and he added, " Th^nfallibility of the Pope was the hardest to receive; but my doubts ware silenced by *It is the doctrine of the true Church, and therefore it must be true, and therefore I must receive it.' " It was no doubt the reading and reflecting upon the traditions and interpretations of Catholicity, through which this Protestant becamv convinced that Rome was the true Church, for, had he spent the same time in reading and meditating upon the*Word of God, he could not have come to such a conclusion; but he would have found, (Rev. xvii. 3,) that she is "that woman sitting upon the scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns;" (6th ver.) "and drunken with the blood of tha saints," (illustrated by the murder of the Albigenses, the fires of bmithfield, the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, &c., &c.); 9th verse: "The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits." Where is there a city but Rome that has any claim to be called the city of the seven hills 1 (15th verse,) " The waters which thou sawest, where the Harlot sits, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations and tongues ;" (Mr. Fer- guson's two hundred and fifty millions! ! !) 18th verse: "And the woman which thou sawest, is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth." There was no city existing at the time that John wrote, but Rome (then Pagan), of which this could be said; and during the last twelve hundred years, and holding a Paganized Christianity, she has still been the only city that has reigned (and with what fearful tyranny!) over the kings of the earth; and to clinch the conclusion with the riv'et of undeniable demonstration, read the 18th verse of the 13th chapter, "Here is wisdom, Let him that hath understanding, count up the number of the beast, for it is the num- ber of a man; and his number is bix hundred and sixty-six." For the information of those who have not had their attention drawn to this remarkable passage, I would state, the Greek letters are used as figures or numerals, as well as in writing words; and so it is in the Latin, from which the practice is taken of numbering the chapters in our English Bibles. To illustrate the above passage, we shall sup- pose a person in company, was speaking of an individual with whose name his audience were unacquainted, but which they much wished to know; and he would say, "I will give you a clue to it. Take Latin numerals that will make 663, and you may find his name;" and they all set to work to make it out, and one of them, more acute than mmmm mm » the rest, writes, "D (500), I (1), L (50), I (1), C (100), I (1)," which added together, make the number of his name, 653, slio-vving that the name required i"* **Delici." Now, the Apostle wrote in Greek, and he would, of course, use the Greek numerals; and we find that the Greek words, He Latine Basilica, (in English, the Latin Kingdom or Empire,) when taken, letter by letter, and the number that each letter stands for put together, they make just 666, "the number of the boast." Thij was brought out with convincing clear- ness in the Cr.mpbell and Purcel debate. The Archbishop affected to laugh at it, and said, by way of banter, " I can make that number out of Alexander Campbell;" to which Campbell replied, '*If you do, I will give up the debate;" and he also challenged the Bishop to jM show state or empire, that like He Lathie Basilica, will spell 666. I would here take notice of the luminous logic of the last sentence of the JFreemoii's editorial upon the Primacy. He says, "Here we leave the question for the present, in the full assurance that our opponent will have either to give up his principle, or what is not very likely, become a firm believer in the Primacy of the successor of Peter." Does not giving up my principles, for which I have been in this con- troversy contending, and believing in the Pope, mean the same thing] There is no alternative here. He says in effect, "He must either give up his Pr(^stantism, or, what is not very likely, become a firm believer in the™ope;" just about as sensible as to say, "He must either eat ham, or, what is not very likely, partake of swine's flesh;" or, "He must either breathe through his nostrils, or, what is not very likely, inhale through his nose." Or, if I should say of Mr. Ferguson, "He must either give up his Popery, or what is not very likely, become a Protestant." Burns speaks of trying once, when tipsy, to count the horns of the moon; but "whether she had three ov four, he couldna tell." So, this writer has been so beclouded by the fogs of Infallibility, that he could not see that the dilemma that he had made for me had only one horn, and I think that he is himself fairly transfixed upon it; and I shall, for the present, at least, leave him there — rather in a humiliating position for one, whom the Catholics of Toronto, I am informed, look upon as their ablest man! As to the dogma of Infallibility, the Catholics need not find fault now with Frotestants opposing it. Since Father Ferguson mounted the platform at Owen Sound, and boasted of his two hundred and fifty millions, Dr. DoUinger has struck a key-note that is now being taken up by the aroused millions of Catholic Germany, and which is reverberating with appalling power throughout the halls and chambers even of the Vatican ! Let us hear some of the utterances of the great Dr. Dollinger: "As a christian, as a theologian, as a historian, as a citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine. Not as a christian: for it is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, and with the plain words of Christ and of the Apostles; it purposes just that establishment of the kingdom of this world, which Christ rejected; it claims that rule over all com- munities, which Peter forbids to all and to himself. Not as a theo- logian: for the whole tradition of the Church is in irreconcilable opposition to it. Not as a historian, can I accept it: for as much as I know that the persistent endeavor to realize this theory of a king- dom of the world has cost Europe rivers of blood; has confounded and degraded whole countries; has shaken the beautiful organic 68 h < II ' I ,. architecture of the elder Church; and has begotten, fed, and sus- tained the worst abuses in the Church." It is stated that forty-four of the Professors of Munich University, endorse the words of Dollinger in an address to him; and ask the Infallibilists (Father Ferguson, of course, among the number), "Is God in need of your lie? and we, and thousands of true hearts with us, answer, like you, reverend sir, with a clear and decided "No!" And this in despite of the infallible "Yes" of Mr. Ferguson's two hundred and fifty millions! The loving, eloquent and renowned Hyacinth, comes with words of power to the support of his illustrious friend, and denounces the Infallibilists as schismatics, who have cut themselves off from the true Church of Christ. Now that these great and gcod men have grappled with the Papal bugbear, contained in the dogma, "If you doubt, you are damned," which has been so long the strongest" bulwark of Romanism, 1 trust that they will go on and bring all the "interpretations of Catholicity" to the test of Scripture, as well as Infallibility, and they will find that it is not the only lie that Popery has palmed upon the world. Ever since I was old enoTigh to understand the position of the Papacy, and its mighty power for evil that it had exerted against the best interests of mankind, I have watched its history with great interest; and T was greatly pleased at the cal^^g of the (Ecumenical Council, as I was satisfied that it would deverop the latent antago- nistic forces of that wonderful Institution, which had in it, as in its pagan prototype as seen by him of Babylon, in his wondrous dream, the strength of the iron and the weakness of the miry clay; and I felt a strong conviction, not weakened by late events, that the In- fallible Dogma, by which the Jesuits sought to bind the conscience of the world, would be cracked and broken, and fall in pieces among the disintegrated units that had been so long bound together by the power of that fatal superstition. In the Editorial under the caption, "Tristram Shandy Again," Mr. Ferguson charges me with having said in my first letter in reply to him, that I read no book but the Bible, and then accuses me with falsehood because I do read other books. This he said to the Catho- lics in his Catholic Paper; he would not have dared to say this in the Times, in which my letter had appeared. If I had said that I never read any otlier book, I would have been a liar like unto him. I may now observe, that I read "Lothair," by the celebrated Dis- raeli, in which he exposes with such a masterly hand, the deception, dissimulation and the deep-dyed falsehood of the Roman Hierarchy; and my spirit being more than usually stirred up, I Avrote the follow- ing, with which I shall now close this discussion: The time now draws near for the Popedom to tumble, For dark is the scowl and fierce is the grumble That comes from the men, who have sworn they will humble The Pope and the Popedom, or die! All rotten's the Papacy now at the core, Tho' bedizened and spangled with jewell'ry o'er — The peoples are shouting: Down, down with the w e,* Her doom, long foretold, has come nigh. *Rev. xvii. 1. \ ' / T 69 With the blood of the martyrs she long has been drunk;* The Priest and Inquisitor, Abbot and monk, Must soon all go down in their old rotten junk As a mill-stone, t to rise up no more; The world will rejoice at he close of the lie. That long has been work'd in the face of the sky; JSwift vengeance will come, as proclaimed from on high — And hark to its stern, distant roar! We don't hate the men — 'tis the system we hate, That so long has beclouded and darkened the fate—* Yes, for ages — of many a kingdom and state. With its smoke from the bottomless deep!§ But its power to do evil will shortly be o'er; Her merchandise no one will buy any more; And vengeance comes down with its terrible score. While her merchants all bitterly weep.|| The Catholic nations, once famous and strong, Are crippled and cowed, and could not prolong — Tho' urged by the clergy— the terrible wrong Of a Roman Pontifical King; His votaries groanmt the dreaded exposure Of weakness, from bursting the Papal enclosure, And taking the sceptre away from the Crozier, Despite the Infallible th'^ig — Made so by the Council, before humbled France Had taken away each breech-loader and lance, No more to defend the Pontifical manse — Because they were needed at home. No longer defended, Rome had been a prey To the ''Party of Progress;" but stronger than they, Emmanuel comes — glad his rule they obey — Who has crushed the Priest rulers of Rome! In spite of the monstrous Pontificial Bull Of hatred and cursing and venom brim full. Hurled 'gainst the " Victor" — -who takes it quite cool, And laughs at the old croaking voice ! And treats with contempt his once terrible roar That used so to frighten the nations of yore. While the horns of the monster were covered with gore — This is passed — let the saints all rejoice! *Rev. xvii. 6; j-xix. 21; fxviii. 10; §xix. 3j ||xviii. 11.