Who Have Changed? by Joseph Clarke

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 7, 1886

Who Have Changed?

By Joseph Clarke

WE often hear it said that the papal authority having been taken away, it is no longer the cruel persecutor it once was, nor is it any more to be dreaded, as it has changed its tactics and modified its principles by contact with republican institutions, and free speech and a free press. To such we recommend the following item from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat:—

"The Catholic Visitor, the exponent of Catholicism in Virginia, to-day has a long editorial arraigning Rev. Dr. Jabez Lafayette Montgomery Curry, the newly appointed Minister to Spain, for a discourse delivered by him on May 12, 1876. In that year Dr. Curry went to Rome as an evangelist. He remained but a short time. Shortly after his return to this city [Richmond, Va.], he delivered this discourse. On that occasion, Dr. Curry, in giving the experience of his evangelical mission to Rome, said:—

"Talk of infidelity. There is something worse and more difficult to overcome. That is Roman Catholicism. Worse than even cannibalism. The difficulties in Italy of converting Roman Catholics to Christianity, and distinctively to the Baptist Church, are therefore even greater than were those in the South Sea islands, or in China. Romanism has been incorporated into the very life of the people of Europe, and has been a corroding canker, eating the public conscience and emasculating everything like spiritual life. The same power that converted heathen England and heathen America to Christianity can convert pagan Asia, but Rome it never will nor can convert."

"The editorial in the Catholic Visitor declares that a man who could give utterance to these denunciations is not fit to represent the United States in a Catholic country. The editor intimates that he will place all the information in connection with this affair where it should go."

None can deny that the papal opinion is, that ignorance and bigotry, such as curse what were once the papal States in Italy, is vastly preferable to the condition of the masses in Protestant Europe and America.

Again, there are many who do not believe that there is a tendency in the Protestantism of this day to go over to Romanism. To such I offer the following item, taken from a paper last spring just after the session of the Presbyterian Assembly in Cincinnati. Judge Drake had introduced before the Assembly a motion denying the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. But—

"Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, one of the revisers of the New Testament, offered the following substitute to Judge Drake's motion, which was discussed for some time and laid over:—

"Resolved, That it is the deliberate opinion of this assembly that the Roman Catholic Church, though corrupt in many things and teaching many errors, yet retaining, as it does, belief in the Holy Scriptures, the confession of Christ, and the fundamental truths of Christianity, is still a branch of the visible church of Christ, and that the sacrament of baptism publicly administered by the authorized ministry in the name of the holy trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is a true and valid original baptism, which ought not and cannot be repeated."

It will be seen from the above that Judge Drake is not blind to the dangers which threaten our country from this source (that is, from Roman Catholicism); and Dr. Schaff, to oppose the motion of Judge Drake and to conciliate Rome, offers this resolution, which indorses the baptism practiced by the Mother of Harlots upon her helpless babes. Now that we may all know what this infant baptism of this apostate church of the Inquisition and the dungeon, is, I give an extract from the Interior, a paper widely known:—

"The ceremonial which alone constitutes valid papal baptism may be of interest in view of the late discussion of the subject. It will be seen that water is a small element in the ceremony. But that which is used must be taken on Holy Saturday, and blessed on that day in a consecrated font. It must also be blessed during the vigil of Pentecost. The priest makes the sign of the cross in the water, then divides it with his hand, pouring it toward the north, south, east, and west. Then he breathes into it, and dips the paschal candle into it. Then he pours the oil of catechumens and chrism into it, which elements have previously been prepared by a more imposing ceremonial, at which a bishop and his priests officiate, and in which the oils and perfumes infused into it go through separate processes. The ceremonial of baptism is as follows: The priest meets the child at the chapel door, and drives the devil away from him by the employment of mediæval Latin. The Latin is so bad that it probably offends the devil's literary taste. Then the priest breathes thrice into the child's face. As the priest is fond of his pipe and his mug, the breath is potent. He then puts salt into the child's mouth, and marks the sign of the cross on the child's forehead and breast. The child is then taken into the temple and solemnly exorcised. This seems to imply that the devil may still be hanging around. Then the priest rubs his spittle on the child's nose and ears, and anoints him with the oil on the breast and back. Then water is three times put on the head in the form of the cross, chrism is put on the top of the head, the child is clothed in a white dress and a burning candle is put into its hands—and the ceremony is complete. That barbaric ceremony, confessedly taken in large part from the old Roman pagan ritual, is called Christian baptism!"

Yes, dear reader, that is the baptism Dr. Schaff wants the Presbyterian Church to indorse. And he is not alone; he had in the assembly so strong a following that Judge Drake's motion failed. But how would it have terminated in the days of good old John Knox? And how would it have terminated with Dr. Schaff, had he offered such a resolution in an assembly of good old Scotch Covenanters?

The fact is that Roman Catholicism is unchanged and unchangeable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. Perhaps the notion of papal infallibility is an heir-loom from the monarchy of Medo-Persia; and when Ahasuerus gave out his decree, it was only as the pope promulgates his decrees, with the same unalterable pertinacity. Infallible! infallible! there are millions in it! This gives an idea of majesty and glory like the laws of Medo-Persia, too wise to err, too stable to change.