Roman Catholic Sophistry.
By W. C. Gage
A LETTER having been sent me by the editor of the REVIEW, purporting to come from a Mr. Edwin Allen, I take the liberty of making some extracts therefrom for publication, as it was evidently designed for this purpose, and will reply to the supposed arguments contained in it. Let me say, however, that the author has given a fictitious name, for what reason I know not, as his real name would not have appeared in connection with his article if he had desired otherwise. I recognize in the writer a young man who, after a brief experience in the present truth, turned to the sophistries of the Church of Rome, and if a brief reply to some of his statements, coupled with an earnest desire to undeceive him, shall prove beneficial, I shall be glad to make an effort in his behalf. I quote from his letter:— “I have now been a subscriber to your paper for several months, although I am a Catholic, a convert from Protestantism. In it I see from time to time charges hurled against the Roman Catholic Church, but no arguments, no proofs, to substantiate those charges. Now I have a few arguments in favor of the church which I should like to hear answered, and I might as well say here that I do not consider it proof to fit the prophecies to the church, for first be sure that they will fit, then put them on.” We beg leave to remind our friend that we do not “fit the prophecies to the church;” it is the church that has fitted herself to the prophecies. Predictions were put upon record thousands of years ago concerning a state of things that should exist in the latter days, and of certain events that should precede them. When we find these prophecies fulfilled by an ecclesiastical body, we simply mark that fulfillment, not because of any special enmity against that church, but as evidence that we are in the last days. The prophetic scriptures speak of a power that should “wear out the saints of the Most High,” “think to change times and laws,” and arrogate to itself powers that God has never given to human beings, and this we believe has all been fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church. That she has put to death thousands who dared to differ from her is undeniable, and with whatever of coloring the history of these deeds has come to us, the naked facts, as admitted by Catholics, are enough to “fit the prophecies” unmistakably to the Church of Rome. “First, I will revert to the infallibility doctrine. We Catholics believe that the church is infallible in matters of faith, and no more. The doctrine is a very plain one, although Protestants everywhere seem to think that, of all the acts of folly and superstition ever committed by the church, it is the crowning one.” It is possible that the writer of the above believes that he has made a true statement of the infallibility doctrine; if so, it illustrates what I have stated, that he is misled by the sophistries of the Romish priesthood, as a few quotations from Catholic writers will show the difference between his definition and the view always held by the church. Pope Nicholas says: “The pope has authority, and has often exercised it, to dispense with the commands of Christ respecting war, marriage, divorce, revenge, swearing, usury, perjury, and uncleanness.”—Caus. 15, Quest. 6. The same author says, in the same connection: “The pope can dispense against the law of nature, and against the universal state of the church.” In the Decretal concerning the translation of Bishops we find this expression: “The pope has power to change times, abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” Pope Nicholas further says (Dist. 96): “The pope’s will stands for reason. He can dispense above the law; and of wrong make right by correcting and changing laws.” Does that look like infallibility as a matter of faith only? The truth is, the Romish Church, in view of the increasing influence of Protestantism, has essentially modified its arrogant claims concerning infallibility, and has thus weakened the very ground on which the claim is based. If the above extracts are a definition of infallibility as it was once held, why change the scope of the application? Is the pope less infallible now than when those statements were made? If so, the doctrine of succession falls to the ground. “All Christians will allow that Christ was infallible, and none will deny but what he has power to give this infallibility to another person. Most will say that the apostles were infallible. Then Christ established an infallible church in matters of faith. Then if Christ left an infallible church, when did it become fallible? Point out the date; tell me the name of the man who first introduced error into the church.” The infallibility of Christ was owing to his divine nature, and for him to confer it upon another he must make the subject of it like him. This he has never done. Nor do we believe that the apostles were infallible. They were, indeed, led by the Spirit of God, yet they made some mistakes, and were obliged to settle some of their differences of faith by a council, which would not have been necessary had they been individually infallible. Collectively, when led by the Spirit of God, their decisions were no doubt correct, but this goes to prove that infallibility is not conferred upon any one man. There is an essential difference between infallibility and purity of faith. Without doubt, Christ left a church with a pure faith, but that it soon became corrupted is a matter of history and prophecy. You ask for the name of the man who first introduced error into the church, and the precise date. This is not in our power to give, but Paul says concerning this matter: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20: 29, 30. How soon this was accomplished is further shown in his language to the Thessalonians, in which he predicts a “falling away” or apostasy, and the revelation of “that man of sin” who was to exalt himself above God. He says there that the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day, and nothing but the existence of another power (paganism) stood in the way of its immediate development. See 2 Thess. 2: 1–8. The writer next quotes the favorite Catholic arguments concerning the promises of Christ never to leave nor forsake his people to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against his church. It is always well to bear in mind that the promises are always conditional. Christ did not forsake his people; they forsook him, and by apostasy forfeited their claim to his promises. Yet while the great mass thus went astray from God, a little remnant continued faithful, and although persecuted and driven into the mountains and deserts by these very apostates, there have always been a few who held to the gospel in its purity. This number ever has been and will continue to be in the minority, as long as time shall continue; indeed, our Saviour intimates that in the last days the purity of the faith will be scarcely discernible, as implied in the question, “When the Son of man cometh will he find faith on the earth?” If the argument is to be based on numbers and worldly influence, error will always have the best of it, but if the declarations of Scripture are to be our guide, we shall recognize the truth, even though it be in obscurity; and if our eyes are open we shall see the startling fulfillments of prophecy, both past and present, and be preparing for the future. May God open the eyes of all the honest-hearted, that they be not deceived by the sophistries of the priesthood, whether of Catholic or so-called Protestant origin. In a future article, I may take up this subject at greater length, and refer to other points in the letter of the brother, who I sincerely hope may be enabled to see all the truth, and be saved in the day when the King in his beauty shall be revealed from Heaven.