Another evening, Mr. Clayton and his children were seated together.
“I will now, dear father," said Humphrey, “go over the tenets of the Church of Rome, which the Protestant divines and doctors consider gross errors. Before, however, I do so, I will take a glance at the religious condition of the civilized world up to the time that the Church of Rome began to gain influence and power. The lower classes were generally gross Pagans, or poor wandering Jews, driven out of their own country, yet clinging to their ceremonies and their law. The upper, or educated classes, were philosophers from Egypt, Greece, Persia, and other parts of the East, holding many different doctrines, more or less adverse to the spirit of Christianity—most of them diametrically opposed to it. The Christians also had greatly increased in numbers and influence, and churches had been established in all directions; but already numerous schisms and heresies had sprung up, and ten bloody persecutions had tried the faith of all. In Rome, it may be affirmed that the true and primitive Church had almost been driven underground, and lay hid in the catacombs. When, however, Constantine declared himself a Christian, and resolved to support the Christians, affairs were changed. The Pagan priests, who had hitherto reigned supreme, and kept the minds of the mass in subjection by their oracles, their gorgeous ceremonies, their rich dresses and processions, their fables and lying wonders of all sorts, saw that their day of power was over, unless they could themselves take a lead in the form of worship prescribed by the Emperor. Some possibly were real converts to Christianity, but the greater number became nominal Christians for the sake of the worldly benefits they expected to obtain; and thus we see a struggle for place and power at once commenced in the Church at Rome, utterly unbecoming the character of Christianity.”
“No sooner, indeed, had the apostate Emperor Julian come to the throne, than these pretended Christian priests showed themselves perfectly ready to re-establish, with greater splendor than before, all the rites and ceremonies of Paganism. Directly the Emperor was dead, they as readily again professed themselves Christians. Many Jews also probably found it to their interest to profess Christianity; some undoubtedly, had been originally really converted. No wonder, then, that many Pagan, and some Jewish ceremonies and rites and observances were introduced into the so-called Christian Church at Rome. Whatever was likely to please the taste of the upper classes, and attract the idolaters among the lower orders, was speedily made a part of the new public worship. The idols, the statues of their old divines, were transformed into saints and martyrs; their shrines were dedicated to the new worship; the temples were freshly named; and every object connected with Pagan worship, which could be of use in tempting the Pagans to profess the new faith, with much ingenuity was adapted to suit the worship of this so-called Christian Church. Hitherto, one of the modes of trying the faith of persons accused of Christianity, was to make them burn incense to the gods. Incense was now introduced into the service of this Church. A basin of water was placed at the entrance of many temples, that the worshippers might sprinkle themselves; one was placed for a similar purpose at the doors of the churches. Lamps had in many temples been kept ever burning, and candles at mid-day had occasionally been placed lighted on the altars, though the idea had been ridiculed by some of the Pagan writers as absurd. It had ever been the custom of the worshippers of the sun to turn to the east, and to lay great stress on the position of their temples with regard to the rising of the luminary of the day. The same custom was introduced by their priests at Rome, and the Christians were told that they bowed towards the east because Jerusalem was in that direction.”
“In Egypt, and many parts of the East, Pagan ascetics had long existed, who separated themselves from the world, and inflicted all sorts of tortures on their bodies, under the idea that by such means they could please the malign deities whom they ignorantly worshipped. Vestal virgins and begging priests had long existed: all these classes were soon established in the new Roman Church under the name of nuns and friars, and monks and hermits. The Egyptian priests had their heads shaved; the new Roman priests and monks and friars, in most instances having theirs shaved, kept them so, and the custom became general. It had for ages been the practice to make votive offerings at the shrines of the gods, greatly to the benefit of the priests who presided at them: the pretended Christian priests were not likely to allow so lucrative a custom to be abandoned, and therefore rigidly kept it up from the first. Indeed, when we consider how strong a hold idolatry had of the minds of the people, and how deeply rooted it was in the affections, we cannot be surprised that such should have been the case; though we must regret that, in the struggle between Paganism and Christianity, Paganism should in Rome have been triumphant and able to strangle Christianity, as it most effectually and assuredly did. Even then there were some real Christians in that so-called Christian Church; some might have occasionally been raised to rank and dignity; although the idolaters, or rather the Atheists (for such were the persons possessed of any real influence), took good care that they should have no power to alter the system they had established. One thing is very certain, that the Christian Church established by St. Paul, when residing in his own hired house, had totally disappeared from Rome before the close of the sixth century, if not rather at a much earlier period. Gradually, the Atheists gained more and more influence, and the professors of primitive Christianity were driven away from the seven-hilled city to dwell in mountain regions or distant lands; and among others, to Britain, where I believe, the light of truth has never been totally extinguished.”
“In the first six centuries, the Bishops of Rome had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of their immediate diocese; and this is evident from the fact that, in the first general Council, held at Nice, 325, summoned by the Emperor, the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were declared to have according to custom, the same authority over the churches subordinate to them that the Bishops of Rome had over those that lay about that city; and that, in the sixth century, when John, the Bishop of Constantinople, assumed to himself the title of universal bishop, Pelagius II, and Gregory I, both Bishops of Rome, protested against him in the strongest language; the latter winding up his expostulations with these remarkable words:—’ I indeed confidently assert that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called "Universal priest," that person, in his vain elation, is the precursor of Antichrist; because, through his pride, he exalts himself above the others.' Yet, this was the very thing that the successors of Gregory were about most completely to do. Although the title Pope, derived from the Greek papa, and signifying father, was originally taken by all bishops, it was not till the end of the eleventh century that Gregory VII. In a Council held at Rome, ordered that the title should be given exclusively to the Bishop of Rome. Those bishops had already well merited the anathema pronounced on them by the first Gregory. Among the Popes there were already, to be followed by several others, some of the most infamous and execrable characters that have ever disgraced humanity. The names of John 13, Alexander III, Julius III, Gregory VII, John 18, Urban VI, John XXIII, Julius II, Alexander VI, and Benedict IX, will ever remain in history as proofs of the awful extent of villainy and crime of which man is capable. I need not enter more into that subject. Such is the information I have gleaned from books written by earnest men, whose great anxiety and prayer has been to ascertain the truth, and put it forth for the benefit of their fellow-men. If we are to judge of a Church by her fruits, by the vices of her rulers, her bishops and priests; by the character of the laity attached to her; how can we do otherwise than condemn the Church of Rome, and cry out to our friends, ' Come out of her; come out of her; and partake not longer of her abominations'?”
Mr. Clayton cast a look of astonishment and dismay at his son. He could only say, "Alas! are these things so? How long, then, have I been misguided and deceived?”
“Indeed, dear father, they are true, I fully believe," answered Humphrey. "But it may be satisfactory to you to try each doctrine of the Church of Rome by the doctrine taught in the blessed Gospel, and see how far the two agree. I have been doing so for many months, with the aid of certain books—some written in Germany, others by Protestants in England; and I have come to the conclusion that the doctrines of the Roman Church are totally at variance with the Gospel, and clearly exhibit their Pagan origin.”
“My son, I am sure that you have been earnestly seeking the truth; and I am equally sure that the Holy Spirit, whose guidance you have sought, will lead you and me into it," said Mr. Clayton, solemnly; "therefore, let us go on without fear, confident that if Rome is right, we shall be led back to her; but that if wrong, we shall receive the truth as it is in the Gospel, and the Gospel alone; and have knowledge, strength, and courage, to protest against her errors and impositions.”
“Well then, father, I will without delay go over the chief points against which those who love the Bible protest," said Humphrey, drawing some pamphlets from his pockets, and a paper of manuscript notes. “First, then, about this Church of Rome, which professes to have been founded by St. Peter, and to be the mother of all Churches. There is no proof whatever that St. Peter ever was at Rome, but rather that he never was there; and, certainly, the Christian Church there was founded by St. Paul, when he lived in his own hired house.
If there the scene of the Smithfield martyrdoms could have been a mother Church, it must have been the Church at Jerusalem, founded by Christ Himself and His disciples. The Church, however, clearly means the spiritual Church, of which Christ is the head corner-stone, composed of all faithful believers in the all-sufficient sacrifice He made of Himself, being the Son of God. No Church can claim to be the mistress of others; for the believing Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs with the believing Jews—to be of the same body, and to possess the same privileges. The Pope's assumption of power is blasphemous, and in direct violation of the prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Head over all things to His Church—Ephesians 1:22; 4:1522And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (Ephesians 1:22)
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Ephesians 4:15); Colossians 1:18; 2:1918And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)
19And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (Colossians 2:19).”
“For the first six centuries, indeed, the Bishops of Rome, though called Papas or Popes, as were numerous other bishops at the same time, and all the bishops in the East, had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of their own immediate diocese and it was not till the end of the eleventh century that Gregory VII, in a Council held at Rome, ordered that the title should be given exclusively to the Bishop of Rome. This I have before stated; but it cannot be too often repeated, with regard to the infallibility of the Church of Rome, not to speak of the infamous lives of numbers of the Popes and Cardinals, that Councils have constantly contradicted each other; that she has taught doctrines, not only not supported by, but contrary to the Holy Scriptures; that there have been several rival Popes at the same time, each claiming to be infallible, each asserting different opinions and denouncing their opponents as infamous. Had the Church of Rome been infallible, St. Paul would not have addressed to that Church, which he himself founded (and surely if it was ever pure and infallible, it was at the time)—I say he would not have addressed these remarkable words: 'Boast not against the branches: but if thou boast, thou barest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off:”
“Did the Church at Rome continue pure and holy, worshipping God in sincerity and truth? Numbers of Roman writers even, confess that she did not. History loudly proclaims her follies, her sins, and abominations. The most respectable of the Popes were those chosen by the Emperors—who found that they could not trust the Cardinal Bishops and Priests to elect their Chief Pontiff—Pontifex Maximus. The celebrated Hildebrand, Gregory VII, at length, in the eleventh century, got his foot on the necks of Emperors and Kings; his example being imitated and his system being carried out still more practically by Innocent III, in the thirteenth century. Now, it is very certain, from what I have said, and from what I have read, that one of two things have happened: either the Christian Church in Rome was cut off, or Paul was made a liar! Papal supremacy, of course, falls, if what I have already advanced, is true. The Pope says that he derives authority over all Christians from Peter, because Peter was first Bishop of Rome. There is no proof that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Peter himself was not superior to the other apostles; nor are the Popes, even if they are his successors, which they are not. Besides, Christ is the only supreme Head of the Church, and its unity consists in its recognizing Him as its living and only Head.”
“When our Lord addressed Peter with the words, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Peter had, just before, declared his belief in the Messiah ship of our Lord; replying to Christ's question, Whom say ye that I am? "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Then our Lord says: ' On this confession of the truth, which you, Peter, have made, I will build my Church;' that is to say, let it be the fundamental principle in the belief of all who call themselves Christians. This is what you are to preach when you go forth to proclaim the Gospel. And He immediately afterward explained to His disciples how He—the Son of God, as He had declared Himself—must be sacrificed and raised again the third day. Peter, who was evidently far from enlightened on all points, attempted to persuade our Lord to avoid the sacrifice of Himself; Christ turned round to Peter, whom the Romanists declare had just been made head of the Church, and said, ' Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' It was not, indeed, till the day of Pentecost that Peter became wholly converted and enlightened; and then, indeed, the keys or knowledge necessary to teach men how they might enter the kingdom of heaven were committed to him, as they were to the other apostles; and the kingdom of heaven, it must be understood, is Christ's kingdom here on earth. All believers are subjects of that kingdom; and unless a person enters it here, he will never enter it at all.”
“But really, my dear father, it seems to me that the whole ground has been swept away from under the feet of the Papists, from what I have already said. They support the worship of images, by referring to Ex. 25:1818And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18), where Moses is commanded to make two Cherubims, and to place them over the Mercy-Seat; and to Num. 21:88And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. (Numbers 21:8), where he was commanded to make a brazen serpent. Not a word, however, in either account, is said about worshipping these devices; but numberless passages occur throughout Scripture where anything like the worship of images is most strictly prohibited, besides in the commandments. Nothing can be stronger than our Lord's own words, to prevent anything like adoration offered to the Virgin Mary. The worship paid to her in Rome is clearly derived from, and a mixture of, that paid to Diana, the great goddess of the Ephesians, and to Juno; and it is remarkable that the peacock's tails carried before the Pope, when, in the ceremonies of the Church, he is carried about on men's shoulders, are the especial insignia of Juno, the Queen of Heaven—the same name given to the Virgin Mary. As to Invocation of Saints not a line in Scripture supports it; but, on the contrary, St. Paul says, “For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need ' (Hebrews 4:15, 1615For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15‑16)). Our Lord Himself says, ' Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' (Matt. 11:2828Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28)). Then, are we not insulting Christ when we refuse to accept this merciful, loving, kind invitation, and refuse to go direct to Him, and tell Him of all our wants—our sorrows—to confess to Him all our sins? Surely we are! Oh! what a kind, loving, merciful heart has Jesus! No human love can equal it: not that, even, of His virgin mother; through whom He was born in the flesh, that He might feel for us.”
“Not by one single word does He ever show that He desired any special respect paid to His mother, though she was assuredly blessed in being selected for the honor of bearing Him. As also we have a great High Priest in the heavens, all earthly priesthoods were abolished; we are to confess our sins to our loving Savior; and, therefore, it is blasphemous presumption in a man to listen to a confession of sins; and faithless, ignorant folly in those who so confess. The forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone, and He has refused to award it, unless to those trusting in the precious blood of His Son alone; and the apostles even were only directed to assure those who did thus trust in Christ's atonement that they were absolved. Every believer has this assurance, or ought to have it, and the minister can do no more than remind him of it. Therefore, every time the Pope or one of his priests pronounces absolution as a judge, and by way of jurisdiction, he is guilty of gross blasphemy. But I must once more speak of the love of Christ, to show that those who pray to any other than to Him, are guilty of gross ingratitude—of rebellion and insult to that love. What should we think of a child, who, turning from a kind father who had promised to give him everything he asked, persisted in going to a stranger for what he wanted?”
“Yet, of all the blasphemies and insults to Christ of which the Church of Rome is guilty, the greatest, perhaps is that of offering up the Mass—or the sacrifice of the Mass, as it is called—for which the dogma of Transubstantiation was invented, in the eighth century. I repeat, dear father, that I look upon the sacrifice of the Mass as the crowning impiety and blasphemy of the Papists. Every time it is offered up, Christ, who sits on high at the right hand of God, our advocate with the Father, pleading the all-sufficient merit of His blood, shed on Calvary, is insulted and blasphemed. The question at issue is this: Did Jesus Christ die on the cross, and is His death a sufficient and complete sacrifice for the sins of mankind? If so, no other sacrifice can possibly be needed—we have to interpret every passage we meet with in Scripture bearing on the subject. The most important passage is that in which Christ first instituted the communion (Matt. 26:26, 2826And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (Matthew 26:26)
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)): Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is my body'—in other words, this bread represents my body ' And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins'—or, in other words, this wine represents My blood, which is about to be shed for the remission, or absolution, of the sins of as many as believe in Me. This figurative language is employed frequently in the Bible: (Luke 8:1111Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11)) The seed is (represents) the word of God '; (John 10:77Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. (John 10:7)), I am the door'—or, I represent the door; otherwise, we might assert that Christ is literally a door; (John 15;1), ' I am the true vine '—or, I am represented by the vine; and, again (1 Cor. 10;4), That rock was Christ,' or represented Christ—otherwise Christ would be a door, a vine, and a rock at the same time. Then, again, the communion was instituted immediately after the Passover, which it was to supersede, and which was especially a commemorative ceremony.”
“Again, directly after Christ had pronounced these words, and distributed the bread and wine, He expressly calls the latter ' the fruit of the vine," thereby showing that no change of substance had taken place. In every instance recorded in the Scriptures, when one substance is changed into another, the change is plainly stated, so that those present had evidence of it. Thus the ruler of the feast in Cana of Galilee tasted the wine, and he knew it was wine. Our Lord says, This do ye in remembrance of Me;' but not a word does He speak about a sacrifice. Remembrance, of necessity, implies the bodily absence of Christ whenever this communion is celebrated by His people, though He promises to be present in spirit on that occasion (though not in the bread and wine), as on all other occasions where two or three of His disciples are gathered together. Lastly, in the Primitive Church, in the time of the apostles—and by that alone should we look for guidance in any custom—the celebration of the communion is expressly described as breaking of bread.' Also, it is clear, from the language of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:2626For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)), As often as ye eat of this bread, and drink this cup, ye do spew the Lord's death till he come.' What more implicit statement—what more clear language can be required? We eat the actual bread, we drink the actual wine, to commemorate the Lord's death—to remind us of it—to prove that we trust in it—because He is absent in the body, though we by faith, know that He in spirit, is in the midst of us. This we are required to do till He come in His glorified body. Then faith will be no more required, because we shall see Him as He is.”
“Once more, in the discourse on the establishment of the communion, our Lord speaks of Himself as bread, and not of the bread as His body. If this was to be taken literally, it would prove that His body was changed into bread—but certainly not that a loaf of bread, or a wafer, could be changed into His body. Eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, of course means believing ' on Him, taking Him in spiritually as we eat bread and drink wine. Here is another argument against Transubstantiation, or any dogma like it. When Jesus—having fed five thousand in a miraculous way on bread and fish, as recorded in John 6:2626Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. (John 6:26)—says, in verse 51, I am the living bread, which came down from heaven,' if He spoke in a literal sense of His flesh, it would prove that His human nature came down from heaven, which is contrary to fact. However, if this passage does prove Transubstantiation, as the Papists assert, then the declaration, in verse 54—' Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life '—would prove that everyone who receives the sacrament in the Church of Rome must be saved; but the declaration, in verse 53—' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you 'would also prove that no one can be saved unless he receive the communion in both kinds. Now, as the Church of Rome only administers it in one kind to the laity, it follows that only the clergy can be saved, and that all laymen must be damned.”
“Enough, enough, my son!" exclaimed Mr. Clayton." How have my eyes and my understanding been blinded? As I have listened to you, my heart has burned within me at the glorious truths you have unfolded, and of which I have hitherto remained ignorant; while it has risen with indignation against the system of imposture by which the Church of Rome has so long held the great mass of mankind in subjection. From this moment, I come out of her; and may God give me grace to increase in knowledge of the truth, and to continue steadfast in it to the end!
“Amen," said Humphrey and Mary.
From that day Reginald Clayton began to study the Scriptures, with the aid of his son, reading also the books he had collected. He rapidly improved in knowledge; his faith increased; and he soon became eager to instruct his neighbors and friends in the truths which had awakened him out of the sleep of death, and brought comfort and peace to his own soul.