The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-01-11 00:00:00

CREEP OF POPE Plus IV

‘, 1. 1 most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesias-
deal traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same
church.

" 11. I also admit the Holy Scripture, according to that sense which
our holy Mother, the Church, has held and does hold, to which it be•
longs, to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the scriptures:
neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to
the unanimous consent of the fathers, • _ _

" 111. I also profess, that there are truly and properly seven sacra
ments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and nece:
sary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; tc
wit, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penauce, extreme unction order!
and matrimony, and that they confer grace ; and that of these, baptism
confirmation, and orders connot be reiterated without sacrilege: and I
also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of tht
Catholic church, used in the solemn administration of all the aforesaic
sacraments.
.

—.--..—.
" IV. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which.
have been defined and declared in the Holy Council of Trent, concern
ing original sin and justification.
V. I profess, likewise, that in the mass there is offered to God a
true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and
that in the most holy sacramemt of the eucharist there are truly,
really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and
divinity of our Lord J esus Christ ; and that there is made a conversion
of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole
substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the Catholic
Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under eitherkind
alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.
" VI. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls
therein detained, are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
" VII. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are
to be honoured and invocated ; and that they offer prayers to God for
us, and that their relies are to be held in veneration,
" VIII. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the Mother
of God, ever virgin, and also of other saints, may be had and retained;
and that due honour and veneration are to be given them.
" IX. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ
in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian
people.
" X. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman church
for the Mother and Mistress of all churches; and promise true obedi-
ence to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.
" XI. I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things
delivered, defined and declared by the sacred canons and general
councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent; and I con-
demn, reject, and anathematise all things contrary thereto, and all
heresies which the church has condemned, rejected, and anathematised.
" XII. I, N. N. do, at this present, freely profess and sincerely hold
this true Catholic faith, wrrnouT WHICH NO MAN CAN BE
SAVED ; and I promise most constantly to retain and confess the same
entire and inviolate, with God's assistance, to the end of my life."
Here are the novelties, and, I must take the liberty to add,
the heresies of Romanism, to none of which is there the
slightest allusion in the Nicene creed. If these be Chris-
tianity, the holy fathers assembled at Ephesus were blind
indeed.
If on the other hand, those fathers were enlightened and
competent judges, then this profession of your faith forms
no part of the Christian religion. You must relinquish one
or other, either this profession of faith, or all claim to an-
tiquity—utrurn horummavis accipe.
You say, " It was intended that this profession of faith
should be subscribed by persons about to be promoted to
ecclesiastical dignities, and by converts, on their reception
into the church. In England, however. little use is made of
it, except by Protestant controversialists."—Remarks,
p. 14.
Is this.so ? Why, Sir, are not you, and all the Romi

priests in Englund, 'continually making use of it, in all your
teachings and preachings ? Is it not made use of in all your
catechisms ? Is it not made use of in the notes to the Douay
Bible ? Is it not required to be subscribed " by converts on
their reception into the church," in direct and systematic
violation of the decree of the Council of Ephesus, which, as

you say yourself, prohibited any other profession of faith to
be required from converts in future, except the Nicene
Greed?

Yes, Sir, it is so used, and while it is so continued, those
who obtrude it, in- defiance of both Scripture and antiquity,-
are justly responsible for all the controversy, agitation, and
collision, inevitably consequent thereupon. If you would
retrace your steps, renouncing the new matter defined and
required by Pope Pius IV. ; and abiding by the ancient veri-
ties defined by the holy fathers assembled at Nice, our con-
troversy would be at an end ; or at least reduced to matters
so comparatively non-essential, that the liberal forbearance
you advocate might be exercised without incurring the charge
of indifference towards the fundamental truths of the Revela-
tion of God.

As it now stands, the whole truth is at stake ; and although
I love peace and quietness and good will as much as any man,
and am cordially desirous to obey the Apostle, and "fit be
possible live peaceably with all men ;" yet 1 must candidly
confess that I do not see how any man can in this great mat-
ter practice forbearance without betraying indifference, nei-
ther can I see how indifference in this great matter can exist,
except where, after all, infidelity is the real root of the man's
character.

This I say because the additions of Pope Pius IV. are not
merely additions, leaving the ancient faith, so far as it goes,
to be received in its original integrity : but the additions are
so constructed, as substantially both in doctrine and practice,
to supersede the ancient faith, and introduce a system which
wears the outward appearance at least of an idolatry in wor-
ship distressing to every Christian heart which is tenderly
alive to the honour and glory of the true God.
I now revert to my discourse, as reported in continuation,
in the newspaper.

The-rev. gentleman having addressed some appropriate exhortations
to the converts, in most affectionate language, then entered upon the
consideration of the history of individual teaching in the church, from
which he had before distinguished the history of its public authoritative
Catholic dccuments. Of this part of his discourse, a short summary
wi!l best suit the state of our columns. The first teachers of the
Christian church had themselves been either Jews or pupils in some
school of heathen philosophy: they had been either Jews or Platonists
or Pythagoreans. When these men were converted, they were not
inspired as the apostles were, and therefore it is but fair to look upon
and judge them according to the common principles of human nature.
The prejudice - of education are strong; they cleave to men's minds;
and it was difficult for even a converted man, honestly so, to shake off
the early prejudices of his education. We can understand very well
how these early teachers in the Christian church might be- orthodox in
sentiment, and that when cool, and calm they sat down to construct a
creed, they should construct• an orthodox creed—as that of Nice; but
we can also understand very well !that the same men, when warmed
in their subject in teaching, excited in their studies with the pen in
their hand, and writing at large, or still more excited in their pulpits
when speaking to the people, would draw upon the stores of their early
education ; nay, we cannot understand bow they could avoid it. It
was miraculous how the apostles themselves avoided Judaising;
indeed, it is a proof of their inspiration; for they were educated as
Jews, yet, from the moment the Holy Ghost descended upon them,
there was no Judaising in their teachings. Not so was it with the men

o were uninspird; he effects of early education broke out in them;

Platonism
and they engraited the remnants of Platonism and Pythagorism and
Judaism upon the doctrines of the gospel of Christ. Hence, the
worshipping of angels—which Paul cautioned the Colossians against,
or demi-gods—which made part of the Platonic philosophy. ho with
regard to the Pythagorean philosophy. An important feature in Py-
thagorism was celibacy, another was abstinence from certain meats,
another keeping the secrets of their profession—the arcana—from the
public, and practising reserve in the communication of their sacred
knowledge. We see the elements of Popery in the Pythagorean
philosophy. Here was the commencement of the individuals false
teaching in the church: but for 1500 years they did not go so far as to
affect the public authoritative documents which were to bind the church
catholic. These errors were found among some individuals : other
individuals opposed them : there were controversies going on. Many
of these errors were embraced and preached by the celebrated men
whom we called the fathers of the church, to whom we were now referr-
ed for the true view of Christianity, and invited to receive all that they

said. Now how should we distinguish between what they said after
Christ, and what they said after Pythagoras or Plato? How should
we determine but by comparing it with what Christ and the apostles

But you do not approve of appealing to the holy scriptures,
and seem to think that as " the minister of every dissenting
denomination thinks his peculiar opinions are the doctrines
of the Bible," (Remarks, &c., p. 6,) therefore all such ap-
peals must be useless. This part of your pamphlet is liberal
—according to the present fashionable acceptance of that
word. It is a bait skilfully prepared for the unwary; and
coming from a papal priest, (you must excuse me when I say,
without meaning anything personal,) it reminds me of the
latitude secured to the disciples of Cardinal Allen in their
pledge of allegiance to the See of Rome.*
Whatever tends to shake confidence in the holy scriptures,
tends ultimately to the extension of the Romish system. To
acquiesce in your view of an appeal to the Bible would be
practically to neutralize altogether the certainty and efficacy
of divine revelation, and so give ourselves up to the mercy of
man's teaching. It would be to set sail without chart, or
compass, and after being tossed to and fro for a while by
every wind of doctrine, at last either to be shipwrecked and
perish in open infidelity ; or, in the desperation occasioned
by protracted uncertainty, to rush reckless into the arms of
the great pirate, and be water-logged and enslaved in the
dead sea of the assumed infallibility of the papacy.
But he who indeed believeth the scriptures " shall not make
haste." He is taught by the Spirit of God ; and his confi-
dence in the word of God is not a mere peradventure, to be
shaken by the subtleties of man's argumentation. The gospel
has come to him, "not in word only but in power, and in
the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance."—Thess. i., 4.
True, he cannot convey his convictions to another. He
knows this well. Such convictions are not conveyable by
man. They are of God, and of God only. No man can have
them but he who is born not of blood (by hereditary descent)
nor of the will of the flesh, (by any exercise of his own
carnal mind,) nor of the will of man, (by any effort of his
parent, or pastor, or friend,) but of God. —St. John, i. 12,13.
It is written in the Prophets," said our Saviour, " They
shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath
heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."—
St. John, vi., 45.
This you will call enthusiasm, and under the plea that
every one may appeal to the Bible for his opinions, you will
continue to insinuate that no one can Appeal to it with
certainty, i. e., that the Bible is useless.
But sir, christian men are not so easily deceived. We
know better, and are not at all staggered (nay rather we are
confirmed) by the reception which spiritual truth meets with
in the world. We know that " the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolish-
ness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually (and not otherwise), discerned."-1 ii., 14.
But you appeal to numbers as a test of religious truth.
You say " If, indeed, my arguments appear conclusive to the
generality of mankind, this affords a strong presumption of
the truth of my opinions. if, on the other hand, I have
argued with many, and convinced few, the presumption lies
the other way." Remarks, Brc., P. B.
that the principle here laid
I venture to affirm in reply,
down, tho' sound generally in things pertaining to natural
reason, and the affairs of this life, is unsound in religion :
and I do so, because HE who is THE TROTH says, "wide is
the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat; because straight is
the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth into life, and few
there be that find it." St. Matthew, vii. 13 and 14. In the
light of this awful truth, to glory in being in the majority in
Christendom is an unenviable boast. You write like an
Unitarian who denies the fall of man, and therefore argues
as if man's mind were naturally inclined to truth instead of
being as the Apostle St. Paul declares it to be, " enmity
against God," the fountain of all truth. Rom. viii. 7.
According to your argument, the presumption as you ex-
press it, (for your liberality ! is so great YOu seem incapable
of rising into any certainty,) the presumption is that our Sa-
viour himself did not advocate truth, for certainly he argued
with many and convinced few. Romanisrn, on the con-
trary, argues with few, and yet convinces many. Her en-
ticements, like those of the harlot, are numerous, varied,
and most convincing to the flesh, while attempts at argu-
ment serve but to raise impediments in the way of her full
indulgence.
On the subject of majorities in religion, Dr. Jortia has
well remarked—" Is not universality, or wide extent, a mark
of true religion ? Not at all. Truth is truth, and error is
error, whether the multitude think so or not. Numbers are
a mere accidental circumstance which determines nothing in
point of reason. How long, I pray, have men been so pious,
and judicious, that the majority must be decisive of right or
wrong ? Idolatry, absurd as it was, once overspread the face of
the earth. Let not the Church of Rome boast of her supe-
rior numbers. If true religion were confined to one king-
dom, to one tribe, to one family, to eight
,persons, as it was
in Noah's ark, it would still be what it is.'
When we repeat our question, concerning the early wri-
ters, or fathers as they are called, of the Christian church,
how are we to distinguish between what they said after Christ
and what they said after the Jewish Rabbis, or after Plato,
or Pythagoras ? Some of the defenders of your faith,
equally repugnant with yourself to our appeal to Scripture,
and not willing to expose the hollowness of their argument
by an appeal to modern majorities ; have recourse to ancient
majorities under the imposing title of " Catholic consent."
They grant that no individual among the fathers is entitled
to our entire deference; but that whatever has their universal

consent is so.
To this I answer first, that taken absolutely, no such thing
as universal consent, in any great truth of Christianity, ever
existed—no, not in the Trinity, for there were Arians in opi-
nion, though not in name, from the beginning, and Arius
himself was a distinguished father and bishop of the church.
But, secondly, I answer that, taken relatively, a general
(though not a catholic) consent may be pleaded, and we are
willing to appeal to it. Upon the only documents concern-
ing which such consent existed, we have no controversy. It
existed concerning the Nicene creed, and we receive the Ni-
cene creed. Upon other points they differed one from ano-
ther. Many errors were taught: many individuals went
astray; and there was much controversy. But the Nicene
creed, as comprehensive and inclusive of the truth stated in
the apostles' creed, and the creed of St. Athanasius ; the Ni-
cene creed as defined by the holy fathers assembled at Nice;
the Nicene creed as we have it, was the only catholic docu-
ment, and therefore to this alone could there be any recog-
nised catholic consent. We challenge Rome or Oxford,
with all their learning, to produce catholic consent fur any
one of the points now in controversy between us.
When the new creed of Pope Pius IV. was promulgated
(new as a general creed of the church, though not new as to
many of its falsehoods, held by particular individuals), it was
so constructed with a view to embrace existing profitable
falsehoods, that the teachers of Judaism and Paganism, un-
der Christian names, could adhere to it.
It was natural to the corrupt heart of man ; and the old
creed, in its Christian simplicity, was not natural. The old
creed could not he cordially received but by divine grace.
It was as the strait gate opening on the narrow way, and
comparatively few could find it. The new creed, flattering
the pride, self-righteousness, and superstition of fallen man,
was readily received by thousands, or rather recognised as a
catholic creed by thousands who had already, as individuals,
imbibed its special poisons. It was as the wide gate, opening
on the broad road that leadeth to destruction.
The apostacy became general, though never absolutely uni-
versal. God never left himself without witnesses ; hearts
that slave to the primitive truth ; and tongues that protested
against the innovating falsehoods.
Here is my answer to another of your objections. " But,
waiving all argument, you exclaim, " does Mr. M'Neile
really believe what he states to be a fact, viz., that all had
been Protestants from the beginning of Christianity up to
the year 1500, and that, at or about that period, Catholicity,
which he calls Romanism, appeared in the world for the first
time?"—Remarks, p. 16.
I made no such statement as you here impute to me. I
spoke of public authoritative documents, not of individuals.
Speaking of individuals, I said, and say again, that Catholic
truth and Romish errors (errors not at first Romish in name,
but such as, originating in perverted Judaism and the various
schools of heathen philosophy, were eventually adopted, sys-
tematised, and enforced by Rome, and are now best and most
readily understood by the title Romish errors), Catholic truth
and such errors existed from the beginning ; but Catholic
truth was not thrown into an attitude of protest, properly so
called, until Romish errors were proclaimed and imposed by
authority. The individuals who resisted and endeavoured to
remove such errors previously, were Reformers; but could
not with strict propriety be called Protesters. The church
in England reformed itself, throwing off the Romish errors,
and proclaiming by authority the sufficiency of the ancient
faith for the salvation of every man who in heart embraces it.
Here again I find myself anticipating an answer to another
of your queries. You ask, " How can he (Mr. M`Neile) con-
strain his conscience to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles,
which, to all intents and purposes, are a creed to him, and a
creed to which he is most stringently bound ? What answer
would he make to a dissenter, who, substituting the Athanasian
creed, or the thirty-nine articles, for the creed of Pope Pius,
should urge his own argument against him, almost in his own
words ?" Remarks, &C., p. 6.
My answer concerning the thirty-nine articles is this. I am
not required to subscribe them as a creed, without the belief

* According to Strype's-account, the Pupils in the College of Douay,
were permitted, in cash of persecution, or otherwise, to preten2 to be
heretically disposed.
Or otherwise: This phrase gives tolerable latitude, embracing a
season like the present, when it is politic in Popery, to appear tolerant.