.^n^ ,%. ^ ::^ ^' oo. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ;f:ia iiiM ■ !!ii2l |||||Z2 "• s- mil 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ 6" _ ► V] ^ o e). e. e/A % ^o> ople to " Search the S are warn- ing.>-', against the " tiaditions of men," and the " commandments of men, that turn from the truth." There is no passage of Scrip- tures, containing any intimation or allusion to oral Iradilinns being needed, in addition to the "■riliii>j.'<, nor any mention of tlicir forming a part of the foundations of Christian doctrines. Con- sidering the numerous and great imperfections of even the wisest and best of men, as to perception, memory, judgment, and all other mental fiiculties, it is simply impossible, that any one tradition ^- s < could be orally liainlccl (htwn, pun' anJ uiiiinpiiirod, in Icllor and spirit, ovou liirouf^li one «^on(Mati()ii ; ami if so, wli.it must bo said as lo all llic lliu'iuatioiis aud clian^^cs of nearly two thousand vourH. ri'(l(.'r IIm! pr<'cc'diii;j^ disponsutioii, ilic laws and preccpt.s, givori directly by (Jud liiinseU", wero by tlio divine ('((tnniand, cutu- rnilied lo wriiiii;^", by Aloses ; and tlio lilv(j coininaiid was jj^iven, tliat I lie pooplo should be lau{^lit mti of them : atid iliat t;iey should preserve and consianlly study iIkmu, aii,tle is read among 3'ou, '.ause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodi- ceans, and that ye likewise read the Kpistle from Laoilicea." This I'lpistle to the Colossians is very full as to doctrine and (?;•/(?<■/, and hclnfi; tho' rowjhlij furaished for the full porfornianco of aZ^ i^mcfical (jood? Is there, or can there be any st;ito or condition, liore or hereafter, beyond that of perfection ; or can any individual bo fin-nished more than " (horow/hlij,"' as the text declares. Why, there never Ji'is been, or ran Ijc, a saint ni)on earth, or an angel in heaven, ])ropared or matured beyond the condition mentioned in the text, and which c(jndition it declares the Scri[)turcs are fully suflicient to secure. If Protestants possessed no other authority in proof of the truth and sndiciency of the lluie of Faith, founded on the Scriphires ahjtu', this text of itself affords the most valid and am|)le testimony on tho point. A few passiigcs maj' now bo given from tho writings of the earliest christian authors, — Fatliers as they are generally called, — to show, that in tlie imblic services of the churches, the Old and New Testament Scriptures were read, for doctrinal and prac- tical instruction, without a word as to oral traditions. The learned and eminent Justin Martyr, wrote in defence of Christi- anil}-, ab(jut lOS years after the Ascension of our Lord, lie was contemporary with I\)lycarp, who was taught of St. John ; and in the parts of his writings relating to the public services of the Clirislians, he says, — '* In their religious assemblies, first of all, the writings of the Prophets and Apostles arc read. The Clerk read until it was suQiciont an d when the reader had ended, the bishop made a Sermon, by way (d' instruction and exhortation to the indtation of lho!«e excellent things which had been read. And when ho had linished his discourse, they all rose up, and offered their prayers to God." TertuUian, who wrote a few years after, says : — " In our public assemblies, the Scriptures arc read, psalms sung, sermons prcaclied, ami i)rayers presented."' And " that they read the Scri[)tures according in tho quality of their i)resent times." And furtlier he says; — " After the celebration of tho Lord's Supper, every one sung a hymn out of the Bible, or of his own composing. Clemens Alexandrinus, a Presbyter, and another of the early Christian writers, says : — "'A good Christian's life is a continual festival ; his sacrifices are prayers and praises, reading «.; . 't. 10 of Scriptures before meat, and sing-iiig of psalms and liymns at meat." The celebrated Cyprian, bishop of Carthago, and an eminent writer of a later period, says of one Aurelius, whom ho designed for a presbyter, that " he was first to begin with the office of reaiUnf/ " lie says of another, named Celcrinus, a lector, or reader, that " he read the law rind the gospel, to all the people." Origen, another celebrated christian writer, calls Ihe Sermons " explanations of the lessons." Of tlu; sermons of Origon, ilhas been said by a learned and eminent liistorian of the cluirch, that he first began with a short exordium, and tlxMi explained verse after verse, or sentence after sentence, showing the natural and literal Ki*znilication of the words, and then the spirilnali/cd, or mystical meaning of them ; and concluded with a suitable iii)pli- cation of all, either " by way of exhortation to piety and virtue, or by way of dehortation from vice and impiety." There is not a word by any of tiiose celebrated primitive writers and teachers, nor by any otiiers, during several succeeding cen- turies of the church, to intimate that oral h'adiiion.i were lawful, or held, as forming any part of the Christian rule offni'h. It rested in the inspired Scriptures alone ; and was drawn from that source. It is unhappily true, that in subsequent and apovta'iaing times, like as by the coirupt hejds and leaders in the Jewish Church, oral traditions were invea'^'d and became established in the churches, and continued more iiiul more to supersede the Scriptures, until for along course of ages, down to the commence- ment of the great Reformation in the fifteenth century, they had put the inspired oracles almost entirely out of sight and use. It is well known, by whom and for what purposes, this treason was committed. The next unfounded assertions of the lecturer to be here re- futed are as follows : — "The Old Testament was rarer than rare jewels. A copy was a rare treasure. There were serious disputes among those who possessed copies ; and it was even doubted whether the original copy had not been destroyed in the destruction of the Temple. For the first IlOO years, the bible existed only in fragments. The church made vast progress in Ihrse years, during which the Bible could not have been the Rule of Faith. The teaching in- 11 spii'oil ami continued of the chiircli must have alone been the rule of Faith." It is really surprising tiiat a learned dignitary, — who must be thought to bo well acnuainted with those Scriptures, and their use in the Jewish and Christian (^Muirchcs, at the period referred to, — should have been so bold as to make those assertions, which can so easily be shown to becontrar}'- to the faois. During several hundred years before Cluistianity, the Jevvs had the Scriptures of the Old Tc.slanieni. constantly in use, in the Services of the Tem- ple, and in the very nnnuwous Synagogues throughout tlie whole of Judea and Galileo, and partially in Samaria also ; ami likewise in their Syna£>"Oi»,uos in manv other countries. We read in nil the four gospels, of oui" fjord going into l.heir Synagogues, and occa- onally teaching in them ; and also in the Temple. In Luke iv. SI are the ioUowing passages : — " And he came to Nazareth wliero he had been brouglit up ; and as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on Ihe S.ibbath day, and stood up for to road. .And there was delivered unto him, the book of the proi)het Esaias." After "eadiiig certain passages which related to hims(;If, " ho closed the book and gave it again to the minister and sat down.'* In Acts xiii. 11-15 are those passages : — " They came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the Synagogue, on the Sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them, saying, — Yc men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." In verse 27 of the same chapter — " For they tluit dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, be- cause they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the pro- phets, which are rea, and doubtless a!i arrhhishnp also, may for kind c<)niitaaiunshii>, and fur comforl, have a wife and children ; and dcacuiifi also, as mentioned in another part of the epistle. But these enjoyments, approved of by heaven, tlioy wilfully reject, or rather are arbitrarily and unjustly de[)rived. In James v. 14, the " elders of the church" are mentioned. The Apostle John, in his ord ' Epistle, — when remarking on the conduct of the " prating" Diotrcphes, towards sojiie of the bre- thren, — says, he " casteth them out of the church." Surely these were not bishops and other clergy. But even more than enough, on the point, has been given from the Scriptures. A few proofs may be added from church history, in the earliest ages ; and they shall first bo given, regarding the bishops, and other eminent characters of the Church of Rome. Clement, its third bishop, following Linus and Anencletus, about A.D. 70, in treating of the constitution of the church, mentions it as com- posed of two parts, — " the Clergy and the laity." Fabianus, and Cornelius also, bishops of Home in the third century, were chosen, " by the suffrages of the clergy, and the people" and also a previous bishop, named Anterus, in the second century. In a letter of the clergy of Rome, to the clergy of Carthage, the conclusion says ; — " the brethren which are in bonds salute you, and the presbyters, and the whole Ciiurch." This clearly shows the same distinction of clergy and laity^ in the constitution of a church ; and oi Rome too. The celebrated Origen, TertuUian, Ire- neus, and other eminent christian writers, iu the second and third centuries, mention the same distinction, of the dergy and people ^3 componeat parts of a church. Ignatius writes;— "if the 21 prayer of one or two, have so great a force, how much more pre- valtMit must that bo, which is maJe by the bishop, and th«; whole church." Dioiiysius bishop of Alexamlria writes, that when lie was banished to Cephro in Lybiu, there came so many f-hiistians unto him, that even there he " iiad a church." Cyprian says, there is but one bishop in a church at a time. And Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in tlie third century, objects to Novatian, that he did not remember, " that there oufjht to be but one bish(»p in a church." lynatiits', and otlior christian writers have said the same. But further, it will here be well to show some of the principal powers and rights of the laity of the church, duriiifi; several ol the earliest centuries. They cho.io their bishops and had the power of deposing them, for heretical doctrines, and gross vices and immonilities ; and were consulted by their bishops, and by them informed as to all material affairs concerning the church. As to the choice of bishops, Eusebius, tho ecclesiastical historian, and bishop of Croserea, who lived in the third century, says of the church of Rome, on the death of its bishop Anterus : — " All the brethren met together in the Church to chose a successor, where all the people unanimously chose Fabianus." On his death, as stated by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, Cornelius was chosen bishop of Rome " by the suffrage of the clergy and the people." And Cyprian says the same as to Churches generally. At the ordination of the Clergy tho whole body of the people were pre- sent. So, as Cj'prian writes, "an African Synod held Anno 2'i8, determined, that the ordination of Ministers ought to be done with the knowledge and in the presence of the people, so that either the crimes of the wicked may be detected, or the merits of the good declared; and so the ordination may be just and lawful, be- ing approved by the suffrage and judgment of all." Pontius, a deacon of the Church of Carthage, says that Cyprian was elect- ed its bislK'p " by the favor of the people ;" and Cyprian himself in one of his epistles, acknowledges himself that bo was chosen " by the suffrage of the people." And further, all the people of a diocese were present at church censures. In the third century, Origen describes an offender as appearing "before the whole 22 ^ church." Clement, the third bishop of Rome, in the first cent , in his beautiful epistle to the Corinthian Church calls tlie censures of the church " the things commandccl by the multitude." And Cyprian writes of two oflending sub-deacons, and an Acolyth, that they were to be tried "before tlie whole people." No offenders were restored to the peace of the church without the knowledge and consent of the whole diocese, for the same bishop Cyprian says " they were to plead their cause before all the people " He also wrote, that it was ordained by a synod, " that except in dan- ger of death, or an instantaneous persecution, none such sJKMild be received into the church's peace without the knowledge and con- sent of the people." Also letters from one Church to another before being sent, were read before all the Church. Thus Cornelius, previously mention- ed as bishop of Eome in the third century, declares that " what- ever letters he received from foreign churches," he " always read thern to his most holy and numerous people." Cyprian and his people and other Churches, as might be shown, did the same. Now considering all the inspired Scriptures on thv? suUjcct, be- fore given, and these numerous testimonies as to the people being a distinct and essential part of the constitution of a ciiurcli, and as such, having the exclusive rights and powers described and declared even by bishops of Rome and of other large places ; and during hundreds of years of tlie Primitive Cliristian Churches, it s indeed astonishing that the Arciibishop, who knows all these things, as well as the writer, or probably better, should, after ask- ing " who is the Church ?" have made the assertions, tliat " not the people," not even "the faithful," but " tiie Bishops, the Pastors of the Church, the successors of the Apostles, form the Church." Such are the errors and mis-statements of an Arch- bishop, which by a mere layman have been so readily and fully refuted. What kind of a body would a Church be, if indeed it could be called one, which consisted merely of the Bishops and other Clergy, without the flesh and blood of the people ? It would be a sktleton indeed, a more scarecroio. And now must be noticed several other errors of the Archbishop, comprisod within a very few words. He says " Paul was sent to 23 one of the successors of the Apostles, to know what he should do." And in the next lecture he said that successor was a '^ priest." It is scarcely possible to crowd a greater number of blunders or mis-statements, — call them which you will, — within such a limited number of words. It may first be remarked, that none of the particulars of this narrative concerning" Paul, have ever become known, except from the Scripture account in Acts> chapters ix. and xxii. The narrative is in the Archbishop's New Testament, the same as in our Protestant version. Now, let us look at these Scripture particulars, and compare them with the Archbishop's account, and thus ascertain his several erroneous statements. First, according* to the Scripture, Paul was told by the Lord to go unto Damascus, " and there it shall be told thee what thou must do." lie was not sent to Annanias, as stated by the Archbishop, nor was Annanias or any other person named to him. Instead of Paul being sent to Annanias, this "disciple" as he is called in the narrative, was sent by the Lord, to Paul, or rather Saul, which then was his name. Next, the Scripture calls Annanias merely " a certain disciple," not a word about his being a successor of the Apostles, or a priest, as stated by the Arch- bishop ; or of his holding any ofl]ce, or following any particular occupation. A successor of the Apostles he certainly was not, for they were all then alive. This conversion of Paul was only about four years after the ascension of our Lord ; and James, the first of the Apostles who left this world, was not martyred until four years after Saul's conversion, being eight years subsequent to tlio ascension. The next errors of the Archbishop, Annanias was neither a priest nor an Apostlo. A ])r(('sf he could not have been for there never has been, nor ever will be any 2iriest under our Ciiristian dispensation, but the one "great High Priest of our profession," — the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. But even if it were conceded that the ministers of the Ciiristian Ciiurch can properly be called priests, there ib not a word to show that Annanias was one. He is merely called "a certain disciple," that is, a scholai', or professor of Christianity. Like Simon, " at the seaside," ho may have been a tanner^ or a tailor, a tent-maker, or a weaver. None have ever known any more about him than the Scripturo 24 Btatement, that he was " a certain disciple," and was living at Damascus. Not a word is there to raise even a supposition that be was either priest or Apostle. In the very brief statements o the Archbishop concerning Paul and Annanias, we thus see that he has committed, — to use no stronger terms, — no less than four positive errors, namely: — as to t\\o person sent, — Annanias being an Apjbtle — a successor of the Apostles — and a priest. To saj' no more, so many erroneous statements regarding such a short Scripture narrative, must, with every intelligent and unprejudiced person, powerfully tend to limit, if not to destroy the belief of all the other material parts of the Archbishop's lectures. Having thus from Scripture and the records of primitive Chris- tianity shown and refuted the principal errors in the Archbishop's first lecture, the like will now be done as to those in the succeeding lecture. The first passages of it, lor comment, are the following : " The doctrines of the church, for a time, were so taught and believed, by the faithful, that no dogmatic definitions of councils were needed. But time after time, one heretic and another arose, taught false doctrine, and denied the infallibility of the church." Here, it may first be remarked, and must be borne in mind by the reader, that the word church, as employed by the Archbishop all through his lectures, means the Church of Rome, from its commencement to the present time ; and as being the only true christian church. This will not be denied to be his meaning of the word, for it is so understood and held by all the priesthood, and other adherents (f that communion. The Archbishop has clearly shown, that he used it in that sense, by this subsequent passage: — "Take away from the separated churches, all they retained of the doctrines, and practices, and liturgies of the church which they denounced, and what would remain for them, but doubt, and despair, and contradiction, and all the evidences of human uncertainty." Here, as in other parts of the lectures, is what may be called, an attack on all churches dissenting from the Church of Rome, and an implied if not direct censure, or con- demnation, for their not being connected with it. In proceeding to comment on the passages first cited, it may be remarked^ that as to the doctrines of the early churches, in all 25 places thoy were so generally Scriptural, and free of serious error, that, it is true, no council was needed, to define them. More- over, in all the earliest centuries, the churches were independent of each other ; and that at Rome, was merely one of them ; and not the largest, and for the three first centuries, not even the most influential. Antioch, and Alexandria, and even Carthage, were equal to it, and in some particulars before it. A celebrated church historian, has written of the Church of Rome, in the fol- lowing terms : — " It would seem to have been purposely appoint- ed by Iiifitiito Wisdom, that our first accounts of the Roman Church, should be very imperfect, in order to confute the proud pretentions to universal dominion, which its bishops have, with such unblushing arrogance, supported, for so many ages. If a line or two in the Gospels, concerning the keys of St. Peter, have been made the foundation of such lofty pretentions, in his sup- posed successors to the primacy, how would they have gloried if his labors at Rome had been so distinctly celebrated as those of St. Paul, in several churches. What bounds would have been set to the pride of ecclesiastical Rome, could she have boasted of herself, as the Mother church, like Jerusalem ; or even exhibited such trophies of Scriptural fame, as Philippi, Thessalonica, Cor- inth, or Kphesus." As to the holding of General Councils to which the Archbishop has referred, there were such nearly constant and general perse- cutions of the Christians during the three first centuries that none could be safely or conveniently held , and it was only after the Emperor Constantino, adopted Christianity and in A. D., 325 that the first General Council of all the churches — the celebrated Coun cilofNice — was held. It is said about 300 bishops attended it. It was not held at Rome, but at the city of Nice in Bythinia. The Bishop of Rome, through infirmities, could not attend, but was represented in the council by two Presbyters. Eusebius the historian, bishop of Cieserea, attended it, and has given some ac- count of its proceedings. The council was hold chiefly with re. ference to the heresy of Arius of Alexandria, who denied the eter- nal and full divinity of the Saviour. There were no discussions iu the Council regarding infallibility in any church, pope, or bisliopj f ■ I 6 None of the early heresies referred to by the Archbishop had any reference to infallibih'ty in any human quarter, for such a dogma or supposition was never imagined in relation to any church or institution or power, on this earth. It was not invented until many centuries after, when it first appeared, as claimed by the Church of Rome, and it gradually advanced in belief and power as the Roman Pontift", through ambitious schemes, imperial favor, and gaining territory, increased in ecclesiastical and secular power and influence : and after bringing the other Western Churches under his dominion. An investigation will now be more particularly made into the presumptuous and profane claim of infallibility in the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Rome. It forms, we know, the very key stone, or foundation, of all the unscriptural doctrines and observances of that church. The Archbishop has repeatedly asserted it, but has given no scriptural or other evidence for its verification. So far, indeed, from any such continued infallibility, in any visible church on eartli being promised in Scripture, wo are there informed, in various places, that df'foctions, errors, and heresies, should very early and very frequently occur, and at times almost universally prevail in that visible Church. In Acts xx, the Apostle Paul, in his affecting address to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, warns them in those emphatic terms, " For I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in amongst 3'ou, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." In 2 Peter, ii, is the following inspired prediction, " But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who 'privlbj shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them : and many shall follow their pernicious ways ; and, through covetous- ness, shall they, with feigned words, make merchandize of you." In the Epistle of Jude we are told "There arc certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemna- tion — ungodly men," &c. In 1 Timothy, iv, are these very re- markable and expressive passages, " Now the Spirit spcaketh ex* )ngst men I after ■' But there fgia and tous- lou." ^rept nna- re- pressly, that in the latter ihnes some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats." And, again, in 2 Thessaionians, ii, is this very pointed and remarkable predic- tion or prophesy, "That day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed — the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that ho is God." And in a following verse, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth, will let (or hinder) until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed," &c., and in a subsequent verso it is said, " Whose coming is after the working of iSatan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." Some of these predicted defections, and apostasies, took place very eaily, and, to a very great extent; in the Asiatic Churches of Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea, — a majority of the seven. This was about, or very shortly after the time the Church commenced at Rome, and hundreds of years before any submis- sion or subjection to a Roman Church, or its supremacy or infalli- bility was claimed, or even imagined. Some of those Churches, if not all, had been planted previous to the one at Rome. If there must be infallibility somewhere, it may be asked, was it in any or all of these earliest but apostatizing Churches ; or was it in the mother of all the Churches — the one at Jerusalem ? If at all existing, it must at that time have been in some of tliem. Yet they have all long since vanished away, and there is no record, or even "tradition" of their having transferred that infallibility to Rome. From the description given by our Lord himself of those four Asiatic Churches, it is plain enough, that there was no infallibility in any of them. The Scriptural passage cited by the Archbishop in support of the asserted infallibility of the Church is in Matthew xxviii 20, — "Lo I am with j'ou alway even to the end of the world." He has not given the previous and connected passages. They arc I ,1, ^f (.■ ■■ 'I •ii-' • 28 these, — " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing* them in the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost — teaching tliem to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of world." Of course these words were not intended to apply to the disciples only, whom our Lord was then addressing, for they were soon to depart from life. They apply", doubtless, to all his faith- ful followers in every age and country, who should continue to teach others. And what were they to teach ? Not the " Iradi- tions of fallible men.'' They were to teach all things whatsoever he had commanded them ; and nothing contrary to those things. And so the gracious Lord has ever been, and will be, with all his ministers and other followers who shall continue to teach the truths He had commanded, and has in the whole of his Sacred Word directed to be taught. Ho has been, and ever will be, with all such faithful disciples, to enlighten, to guide, to support and comfort them, while so engaged in His glorious service. But how can these passages be wrested and applied to support the doctrine of infallibility in any visible Church here below, or to show that they apply to the Roman Church exclusively, or to any other organized and visible Church whatever? They have no reference nor contain the least intimation regarding inJallihiUly in the Church or in any bishop or other official, or in any person whatsoever. He has promised the like presence and support for all his followers who prove obedient, for he says, " He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me," and " 1 will love him, and will manifest myself to him." And, again, "If a man love me, he will keep my Words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him."" The Scriptural truth is, that the real Church of Christ is composed of all true and obedient believers. Al ^'lough these may be connected in visible fellowship, under vari- iu.i human denominations, yet they all agree in holding Him as -•"'•! Head, in all His Divine and gracious offices ; they hold all the essential and saving truths of His holy religion, obediently ob- serve His precepts, and enjoy the light and comfort of His Spirit. The express passages of Scripture to show that such characters 29 alone compose His true spiritual Church or kingdom upon earth arc too numerous to be here inserted ; and for every true enlight- ened Christian they need not be cited. As to the claim of infiilli- ble teaching bj' any Church these few Scriptural passages, among many others which might be given, are alone sufficient to refute it — James i., " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that givctli to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Eplicsians, vi., Take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." And lastly, 1 John, ii., " But the anointing wliicli yc liavo received of Ilim, abideth iu yon, and ye need not that any man teach you." A variety of facts and instances in authentic church history may now bo given to prove how wholly unfoundod is the claim of the iiifaUihiiitij of the Church of Rome. " In the year 351, Liberius of Rome, after two years exile, was not oidy prevailed on to receive an Arian creed, but even to reject Athanasius." " Liberius, by these unworthy means recovered liis Bishopric. The See of Rome at tiiat time, had secular charms, suflicient to seduce a worldly mind. Whether Liberius repented of his h^'pocrisy or not we have no evidence." Where at this time was the constant infallibility of the Roman Church. Its Bishop, or Pope, as probably th(i Archbishop will call him, most solemnly professed himself an Arian heretic. The infallibility seems to have entirely vanished for a season. The Roman Church itself will be among the first most strongly to denounce the heresy. A few years previous to this awful defection a Council of Bishops at Antioch deposed Athanasius, and ordained an Arian Bishop iu his stead. About the same time an Arian Council, influenced by the Emperor Constantius, deposed an orthodox Bishop of Con- stantinople, the metropolis, and appointed an Arian in his place. It is true another Couucil iti Egypt protested against these pro- ceedings, but the Metropolitan See continued for about forty years under Arian government. During this period Councils of Bishops condemned each other, and divisions arose ; and exten- sively prevailed, in the Churches regarding an essential part of Trinitarian truth. I 80 The following passages, relating to our subject, are taken from Milner's Church History : — " In the year 680, a general Council Was called at Constantinople : The Emperor Constantino Pogo- natus presided : The Monotbolito heresy was anathematized ; and its several abettors were condemned, among whom was Ilono- rius a bishop of Rome. A certain proof that infallibility was neither allowed, nor pretended to, at that time, by the Italian pre- late. For the legates of Agathon, who was then bishop of Rome, were at the Council, nor do we find that any opposition was made by them, or by their master, to the condemnation of Ilonorius." Here, then, arc two bishops of Rome, Liberius and Honorius, — shown to be condemned heretics. Many persons think, that there have been a number of others, quite as devoid of infaUibiUty. In the eighth century the introduction of images and pictures into the church, and tlieir worship commenced. " Origen, in hia treatise against Colsus, observes that it is not possible that any one, by worshipping images, should attain the knowledge of God." Athanasius and Lactantius strongly inculcate the same truth. Towards the end of the fourth century some approach towards this evil appeared in the church. Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, observes that he found a linen cloth hanging on the church door, painted, and having on it the image of Christ, or of some saint. " Observing this," says he, " so contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, I tore the cloth." The famous Jerome published in Latin an Epistle of Epiphanius concerning this subject, and added his own testimony on the point. So evident is it that at that time images were absolutely prohibited in the Church of Christ. Augustine also gave his opinicm against images, and said «— " They are of more force to pervert the soul than to in- struct it ; and when images are ever placed in the temples, and had in honour, error creepeth in." All those renowned fathers just named are claimed by the Roman Church, were integral and most important members of her system, and her infallible teachers of her infallible doctrines, but according to her doctrine and practice on this point, for centuries past, they must have been heretics. On that supposition, she should have treated 81 them as such ; but she did not do it, but liolds them in honour to this day. Where was the infallibility on the point at this period. It is true the second Council of Nice, in the eighth century estab- lished this Idolatry, but the British Churches execrated this Council of Nice, and some even of the Italian bishops protested against the growing evil. In the same eighth century a Council of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops was held, to decide the controversy concerning images, and they declare, "Jesus Christ hath delivered us from idolatry, and hath taught us to adore Him in spirit and in truth, but the devil, not being able to endure the beauty of the Church, luith insensibly brought back idol- atry, under the appearance of Christianity, persuading men to worship the creature, and take fur God a work to which they give the name of Jesus Christ.'' In a subsequent year of the same century a Council of three hundred bishops at Frankfort upon Maine condemned that Council of Nice, and the worship of images, — an Italian Bishop was one of this Frankfort Council. In the succeeding century a Council of ^Paris agreed with that Council of Frankfort in the rejection of the decrees of the second Council of Nice, and in the prohibition of image worship. Now, accord- ing to the claims of supremacy and universality by the Roman Church, all these Councils of Bishops belonged to her, and form- ed a large portion of her infallible teachers. But it may well be asked, where, amidst all these opposing Councils and conflicting decrees, did the infallibility and uniformity insisted on really re main ? We Protestants say it was not amorg any of them ; but we further say that the truth on this image subject was with the Frankiort and the two other condemnor councils, and with the renowned Roman fathers, whose similar testimonies have already been giren. These historical facts have been hero introduced merely to as- sist in exposing* the asserted absurd and unscriptural claim of in- fallibility, and uniform teaching in the Roman Church. " The celibacy of the clergy was by many dignitaries in the Church strongly opposed. Even the doctrine of transubstantiation itself, the favorite child of Pascasius Radbert, was still denied by many, and could not, as yet, gain a firm and legal establishment in £u- ■■:; . ;f-\ vV' n 82 ropo. About the year 1265 a National Synod was bold in London under Otbobon tbo Pope's legate. Tiiis Synod, in which Welsh, Scotch, and Irish clergymen wore present, as well as English, was looked on as of great authority, and as a rule of Ecclesiastical dis- cipline to the Church. One of its canons provides against com- mutation of oflctices, and forbids the archdeacon ever to receive money on such accounts, for " sucli pructiccH," says tlio Synod, " amount in eflbct to tlio grant of a liconce to sin." This is ano- ther proof against the doctriiio of ct)iitinMed Roman iiirallibili''y. Lot it be remetnbored that tlio Synod was hold " under tlio Pope's legate." Now wo como to some groat and uiubV'-putcd facts iii the history uf the Roman Church ; and if thoro were no others they would alone be perfectly sufficient to destroy altogether this as- serted claim of infallibility. Tlio whole of Christendom had been distracted for nearly forty years by a scliism in the Popedom. The famous and sanguinary Council of Constance met in 1114 to settle this contention, and to consult and determine on other Ec- clesiastical subjects. At this time, throe pretenders to the chair of St. Peter, namely John XXIII, Benedict XIII, and Grogcry XII, severally laid claim to infalUhility. The Council deposed the whole of tiicm, and chose as Pope, Martin V. Here tlie solemn and important question arises, where did tlie infallibility re- repose during those forty years of controversy? There could, of course, be but one Pope, and which of them was the man, or ra- ther the infallible Vicar. The Council determined that it was not with either of them. Now with the Pope alone, according to the Roman doctrine then, an(J,now, the infallibillity rests. Of the three pretenders, one of them had as good a right to it as either of the others ; but the Council agreed, in effect, that neither of them possessed it. What then had become of it during all these years ? Had it vanished into thin air or become annihilated. There was here a kind of interregnum, as political historians would call it, and of a very anomalous description. Certain it is, the infallibility was nowhere to be found. Protestants beg to de- cline believing or trusting such a vagabond phantom, which might suddenly vanish away, just when they needed it most. That same Council of Constance passed a decree to forbid the laity the 33 ine Uhiirch of Rn • ioo Archbishop states -—." \r In a previous nart „f ti- ^nered, f'om the writings of the foHn *• ™"' " '''" »<•»"«, by extr, . Pnan, that during severe ^r?' '"'='"™*' Origen "«. r •"■rferofthemiblipr u. '^''"'^'"•'■■estcentarie. ,.^" *""' ^y. tfe Soriptufe?' roTd^'f J"'''^ ---'"": r e"!^';" " P-alms or hymns ;-then S» ^"'^ ^°^'=">'«"t ;-»«;"! "^ ■ninister leading them rt-"" ' ""'' '»«'- Players bt .,T.^ andobs;;.ant,7r' •'"'°"' ^^ «" any onho?;" *'"'»"""• ^^-«Mintr:;„te4-/WMeh se/^^^ »'■■*. 'n the Roman Church ' "" "'"' "'^ »««" material' "i;: ^^^e Archbishop further says:- 8 "** '^ «r astray, tk«* xi ^ _. 34 Died to the laity was received by all the believers in the Apostolic age, is evident from what is said on the subject in 1 Cor. xi., as to the whole church observing the ordinance, whore both the ele- ments are mentioned as being received by all. In the second cen- tury, Justin Martyr says ; — '• the elements being blessed, the deacons give to every one present of the 'consecrated bread and wine." Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, in the same century, mentions " the broken bread " which was then given by the minister, unto the deacons, who distributed it to the communicants, and after that, the cup, which the deacons in the like manner delivered. Bishop Cyprian, of Carthage, in fourth century, says, — " the deacons offered the cup to those that were present." And this receiving of both elements, by the laity was observed in all the churcl js, that of Rome included, for upwards of a thousand years, as Ecclesiastical history shows. Even that wicked Coun- cil of Constance, — early in the fifteenth century, — which caused Huss and Jerome to be burnt, in passing their decree, denying the cup to the laity, admitted, that " in the Primitive church, this Sacrament in both kinds, was received by the believers." What must now be said, as to the Archbishop's " proof of what the practice of the Church had always been ? " The next part of the lecture for remark, is that where the Arch- bishop mentions " the power of Mary," as having " ever " been one of the " doctrines of the Church, from the beginning." In answer it is quite sufficient to say, that there is not a word or the slightest intimation either in the Scriptures or in the history of Christianity, by writing or otherwise through many hundreds of the first ages of Christianity as to any power or influence of the Virgin Mary in the way of mediation, intercession or otherwise. It is merely one of the inventions of the Church of Rome in the later ages and which rapidly advanced in influence until it became as it is now, universally prevalent and dominant. The next mistakes of the Archbishop, though not of serious mo- ment, are regarding Tertullian. He says : « The power of the Pope must have been as great then as it has been since, for otherwise so great a doctor as Tertullian could not have been excommunicated." 36 At tills period — the commencement of the third century — and for hundreds of years after, there was no character who bore the name of " Popey There were bishops of Rome like bishops in other places Next mistake, — Tertullian never, in any way, be- longed to the Church of Rome, and it had no power over him. At first he was connected with a church in Africa, and voluntariUj left it, chiefly because ho thought it was not sufliciently severe in its discipline, and that its members were not strict enough in self- denial and general conduct. He joined the Montanists, an heret- ical sect, but after a short time loft them. His departure from the African Church was not through excommunication. It was vol- untary secession. The next passage of the lecture, for remark, is truly of a most extraordinary nature, as proceeding from a learned man, skilled, as it must be presumed the Archbishop is, as to literary and log- ical productions. It is in the following words : — "That the church was the infallible guide of faith then, as she claims to be now, since she required submission to her decrees." Now it may be concluded, that the Archbishop has been well instructed in logic ; for skill in which art and accomplishment, the dignitaries, and other leading persons in his Church, are par- ticularly distinguished, — most especially those called Jesuits. But manifestly, he is here, altogether at fault in his conclusion, that his Church has been, and is now, *' the infallible guide of Faith," since (or because) she required submission to her de- crees." By the same kind of logic, it must certainly be concluded, that the propnets of Baal, in the time of the prophet Elijah ; Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who set up the golden image, for worship ; the founders of Hinduism ; the heads and leaders of the system of Chinese idolatries ; and also, of Mahometanism, which by its sword and devastations, required submission and accept- ance, were all infallible guides of faith ; for they all required sub- mission to their doctrines and decrees. Certainly the learned Archbishop has, in this instance, committed such a blunder as to logic, as gives ground to infer the weakness, or nullity, of the whole of his arguments. One of the concluding passages of the lecture, and the last / 86 which will here receive any comment, is in the following words : "In like manner, for 18 centuries, the Church had taught^ and the world had heard, not searched the Scriptures, which were the property of the Church ; and which were but the proofs of her doctrines, and not the doctrines themselves." Here, the Archbishop has been extremely deficient in the logical and consistent construction of his entire argument, by the admis- sion, " the Scriptures are the2)roq/l9of the doctrines of the Church, and not the doctrines themselves." On this point of proof, the whole question and decision may safely be permitted to rest ; and it can readily be turned againsL him, so as to destroy his whole case. It must be manifest to every ordinary mind that if the proof for veri- fying and deciding any subject or matter whatsovor, depends on any written memorial ; the writing itself must contain some state- ments or information, concerning the subject. Now, it is certain, that there is not a passage, or word, in any part of the Scriptures, to prove, or give the least ground for the belief of the doctrine, that any traditional oral teaching, eitlier alone, or combined with Scripture, shall form the rule ef christian faith ; no word, or the slightest intimation, in Scripture, of the impious tenet of the in- fallibility of any Church, Council, Pope, or other earthly institu- tion or 2>erson; — Nothing about Mass, as now performed in the Church of Rome ; — not a word, or hint, as to the cup in the Sa- crament, being denied to the laity ; nor the least word as to the "power of Mary." None of these things, nor the least intima- tion concerning them, are contained in the Scriptures. The Arch- bishop has not attempted to give Scripture proof of any one of them. On the contrary, by the words, — " not the doctrines them- selves," in the passage cited, he has virtually admitted, that they are not in the Scriptures. How, then, as he asserts, can they be, " the proofs of the doctrines.^" This writer confesses his utter inability to reconcile the conflicting partJ, in this extraordinary announcement of the Archbishop ^ and for examination and deci- sion refersiittothe professors of mental philosophy, logic and meta- physics, in St. Blary's, St. Xavier's, Dalhousie, and the other Pro- vincial Universities. But although unable to overcome and remove this difficulty, of the Archbishop's creation, the writer is bold 37 enough to assert, that none of those last mentioned doctrines of the Church of Kome, form any part of Scriptural and genuine Christianity. And here may appropriately be given, the following remarks of a very eminent Christian minister, and learned Commentator, at the conclusion of his comments on St. Peter's second Epistle : "We have now passed over all the canonical writings of St. Peter that are extant and it is worthy of remark, that in no place of the two Epistles already examined, nor in any of this Apostle's sayings in any other parts of the sacred writings, do wo find any of the pecuUai' tenets of the Romish church : not one word of his or the Pope's mpremacxj ; not one word of those who affect to be his suc- cessors; nothing of the infalUhility claimed by those pretended successors ; nothing of imrgatory, penances, pilgrimafjes.^ auricular confession, poicer of the keys, indulgences, extreme unction, masses, and prayers for the dead; and not one word on the most essential doctrine of the Romish Church, transubstantiation. Now all these things have been considered by themselves, most essential to the being of that Church is it not sirange that he, from whom they profess to derive all their power, authority and influence, in spiri- tual and secular matters, should have said nothing of these most necessary things '/ Is it not a proof that the holy Apostle knew nothing of them ; hat they are no part of the doctrine of God ; and although they distinguish the Church of Home, do not belong to the Church of Christ?" And now although some may think that this answer was not needed, and probably others, that its style of remark is too free and pointed, yet by every true Christian and unprejudiced person the following facts and circumstances will be considered to afford a full vindication as to both those objections. The Express, news- paper, in which the several doctrines and subjects contained in the lectures were given, in such a precise and fully detailed form is the organ of the Roman Catholic Church here, and it may con- fidently be assumed that its editor would not have ventured to publish the lectures as he has done, without the approval and sanction of the Archbishop. And further, if there had been any mistakes, or errors, in the publication of the lectures, the Arch- bishop would, of course, have had them corrected, but nothing of the kind has taken place. Again it is universally known, that I I- 38 all the other Churches believe and hold the Sacred Scriptures to be the only ride of the Christian faith, and, therefore, the Arch- bishop's emphatic denial of its being such a rule, is, in reality, an oflfensive imputation on all other churches ; and, in eifect telling them, that they are in dangerous or ruinous error. But still fur- ther, the Express, paper, circulates extensively in the city and country, and is read by persons belonging to all the other churches. It is regularly on the table of the Young Men's Chris- tian Association, and in other public places. Under all these circumstances, the writer feels, that in bis present eflbrt to exhibit the authority of the inspired Scriptures, as being the Supreme and only rule of the Christian faith, and to expose and refute perni- cious errors, he is not only fully justified, but is performing a Christian dutv. 1 i ] v-t.. p ' J •