3.06 - CATHOLIC CHURCH OF 16TH CENTURY
CATHOLIC CHURCH OF 16TH CENTURY
"I think no one recognizes more fully -than I do the wonderful responsibility that now rests upon me. In a great concourse of people like this impressions are certain to be made. Should I make the wrong one, or be guilty, knowingly, of misstating any fact which would be detrimental or injurious to any living soul, I am certain that God would hold me accountable.
These talks for a few nights are purely historical in their nature. I am exceedingly careful to make only such declarations as are found in our public libraries, taught in the history department of our colleges, and founded upon authentic records. I want to assure you that regarding any individual I have nothing whatsoever unkind to say. I deal, therefore, with doctrines and practices rather than with any individual.
I propose a further study of the Catholic church with special reference to the status of affairs at the beginning of the 16th century. I did not write the history of this organization. I think it I’ not unkind to them for me to study what they have written, what they have said, and what history in general reveals as a matter of fact. This audience knows that about the year 1600 there was a culmination of the period known as the Dark Ages. By the close of this period Catholicism had developed from the second and third centuries into such departures as are mentioned in the preceding sermon.
I called your attention to its administrative development, and likewise to the doctrinal points peculiarly characteristic of that body. At the beginning of the 16th century the general status of affairs was as follows: first, every child born on the earth was born physically into the Catholic church. All those grown up were expected, outwardly, at least, to pay their allegiance to this ecclesiasticism, so that Catholicism boasted of a universal, world-wide membership.
Second, the church was operating at this time not by voluntary contributions, or freewill offerings, but by a compulsory tax imposed upon every individual and his property, both real and personal.
Third, the state undertook to enforce obedience on the part of its subjects to the church. It was as great all offense against the civil authorities to violate some order of the church, as it is to make liquor in the city of Nashville. Can you grasp a situation of that kind; with every citizen a member of the church; with taxes imposed upon the people for the support of it; and then the civil authorities back of that religious institution to see that all of its demands are carried into effect? When you think of just such, you marvel not at why all men were held in subjection to this great ecclesiasticism which had been built up, and which had taken possession of the rights and liberties of humanity everywhere, both civil and religious.
I call attention next to the power that had been gained by the head of the church. In the pope were vested all the powers of government. He was the supreme law giver. No law of any sort or kind, passed by any organization or court was worth a continental unless it met the approval of the pope.
He was not only the supreme law-giver, but likewise he was the supreme judge. All matters affecting the happiness, success or progress of humanity, from the smaller details of civil relationship up to the worship of God were subject to him. He was the supreme and the chief administrator of all the laws. One might defy the emperor or other officials, but when the pope pronounced a verdict against any, there was but one of two choices, either bow in subjection to his authority, or suffer whatever penalty might be imposed.
He insisted upon certain temporal rights aside from his religious prerogatives.
It was his to crown every emperor. He could depose all emperor or a king or release a ruler’s subjects from their oath of allegiance. He could declare null and void, and forbid the people to obey, a law of any state, if he thought it injurious to the interest of the church. He also claimed financial powers. He charged fees for certain services at Rome, assessed the dioceses throughout the world, and levied a tax—Peter’s pence,—upon all Christians.
He exercised dominion not only over all the crowned heads of that land, but it was his to fix the tax and to demand the payment of the same. Temporal power as well as religious had been gained. The first temporal power granted to the pope was in the year 728. He maintained that power down to the year 1870, when at last the people began to rise up in rebellion. But I want to say to you, my friends, it is a part of Catholicism, inseparable from it, for the pope to exercise dominion over the temporal and civil affairs of humanity, just the same as in the religious realm. As evidence of the correctness of that statement I only have to call your attention to the conflict which has been raging in Italy between the pope and the duce as to whether or not temporal power should be granted. If the Catholics could have their way, the pope would be head over all the affairs and relations of man, both civil and religious. With the passing of time and the dawn of a brighter day, there began to arise conflicts between the church and the state. Men will stand for some things a long time, but as Mr. Bryan once said, you can trust the people, ultimately, to work out, from a temporal point of view, their own salvation. The sources of these conflicts were four in number. First: the appointment of high officials. Question: whet has the right to appoint them? They are usually men of power, of wealth and of prominence. Shall the pope appoint them, or shall the emperor? Second: the clergy had grown immensely rich by virtue of the fact that the people were taxed to support the church, and the pope fixed the salary of the clergy. They had grown wealthy, and the question came up: ought the property of the clergy to be exempt from taxation? It had been for a thousand years, but the common people, upon whom the burden of taxation has always been, said this was not right, just or fair, and there was a growing demand for this class to bear its part of the taxation. The emperor said that it should. The pope took the opposite and tried to defend the custom that had prevailed.
Third: shall there continue ecclesiastical courts to take cognizance and to pass judgment upon matters of a civil nature? In all of their trials of a civil and of a domestic sort it had been the custom for the ecclesiastical court to sit in judgment. Emperors and men of the world rose up and said, "Sir, you attend to the religious part; we will attend to the civil affairs." Fourth: how far shall the pope meddle or interfere in the affairs of the state? Now the result of these conflicts, commencing as far back as the 12th century, was that the pope, step by step, was robbed of civil power and temporal authority, and finally, as already stated, when the year 1870 rolled around, there was a complete separation, as much, at least, as was possible, of the state and the church. But popery makes wonderful claims, sounds out great statements which are impossible to be understood. I will read to you some extracts from history that cannot be doubted—matters that can not be questioned. Old Boniface VIII said this: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce to every human creature that it is altogether necessary to salvation to be subject unto the Roman pontiff." I did not say this. That is what a Catholic pope said. In trying to put the people in subjection to his power, he went so far as to declare that eternal salvation is dependent wholly upon obedience to the Roman pontiff, or to the ecclesiastical head. That is why it is ., friends, that I rebel at such all ungodly rotten doctrine. I think that I have to bow down to no pope, in order to read my titles clear over yonder, and, as all American citizen, I resent such insults to our independence and to our relationship to the God of Heaven.
Well, again, "The pope cannot possibly err in decrees of faith." Think of it. Who said that? Catholics themselves so declared, and if there is any man in Nashville who wants to question the correctness of these statements I can give him the evidence. I respect your intelligence, and I know the scholarship of Nashville. It would be far from me to come into your midst and make a statement that I could not justify from the pages of history.
Well if the pope cannot err, everything that I read in the Bible or anywhere else is absolutely false unless it perfectly corroborates the decree of the pope. Isn’t that the limit? But friends I have this observation to present next. The present pope is No. 195 from the first one, Boniface III, 606 A.D. Of that particular type, 196 have occupied the papal chair. But you note some things about that. There have been 29 controversies from the first pope down to the last among Catholics themselves, as to which one was the real pope, and may be that the one who, by sheer power, was ruling, was not really the one, and therefore his fallibility would be demonstrated. But this is not all. There has been a time since the year 606 when for seventy long years no man sat in the papal chair at Rome. What became of affairs during the three score and ten years when the head of humanity upon the earth was absolutely wanting in that city? That is not all yet. At one time since the first, there have been three men, each of them claiming to be pope, and all of them squeezing down in the papal chair, until she burst asunder. That is Catholicism and that is infallibility! Believe it, who can?
I do not believe that Catholic popes are any more wicked or any more immoral than other men, proportionate to number. I would not say that. But because of their claim of infallibility, the very thought that there is wickedness and immorality about them makes it stand out the more prominent~
About 100 years ago in the city of Cincinnati, there was a great debate between Bishop Purcell of the Catholic church, and Alexander Campbell. I think I am saying that which every Catholic would accept when I say that no greater bishop has lived among them than was Bishop Purcell. In that debate Bishop Purcell, himself a Catholic, said this: "Some of the bad popes of Rome are now expiating their sins in the penal fires of hell." That is what he thought about them. I never said as hard a thing about them in my life as that, but if a lot of them were in hell then, what about the last one hundred years? If the proportion holds out, and old Bishop Purcell could speak tonight, he would doubtless add to the number that are thus writhing in agony in the penal fires of hell. My friends, I might continue at length along matters of history like this, but there are some other things that I want to mention in your presence tonight.
Hear it. The very center of Catholic theology is the sacramental system. It is surely the outstanding sacramental church of all the world. There is the antithesis of that. The Church of Christ represents exactly the opposite idea.
I want to say to you that the Church of the Bible is not a church composed of sacraments at all. The Church of Christ believes in none of them, practices none as such. The Catholic church has the very system as its center, and betwixt the two, there reigns denominationalism with more or less of the brand of Catholicism stamped upon it. Denominations, instead of having the seven, as the mother of all ecclesiasticisms formerly announced, have narrowed them down, and claim, some two, some three, and possibly more. Those commonly mentioned in the human creeds and human disciplines, are baptism and the Lord’s supper.
"I want you to know that in the Book of God no such terms are used regarding either of these matters. But what do you mean by sacrament? Here is the Catholic definition. ’A sacrament is all outward and visible sign of all inward grace.’ " When you begin to read other books, the principles of which are based upon the rankest Catholicism known to the world, you will find similar expressions in the creeds, disciplines, confessions on faith, and church rituals of denominationalism.
Whence came such? I answer, not from the Bible, but from Catholicism itself, the mother of the sacramental system.
Catholics teach that there are seven sacraments. First: baptism. What does it mean to them? They say that baptism cleanses from original sin. Hence every child born into the earth is born in a state of depravity, damned and doomed, unless something is done. Therefore, by baptism alone the baby is freed from a state of depravity and original sin. Baptism, to the Catholic, stripped of all antecedents, cleanses a soul from sin.
You might ask, "Brother Hardeman, do you believe that?" No, I never believed it in my life. Baptism, unless it be preceded by a faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and a genuine sure-enough repentance of sin, is as a sounding brass or as a clanging cymbal. My brethren have been misrepresented. I will not say intentionally, but nevertheless it has been done. A prejudice has been created by the pronouncement on the part of those who ought to know better that we teach baptism for the remission of sins. My brethren teach no such thing. Gospel preachers teach that baptism, to a penitent bel~ever, is for, in order to, the remission of sins. Stripped of these antecedents, there can be no such thing as scriptural baptism.
"The second sacrament of Catholicism is that which they call confirmation. What do they mean by that? It is the laying on of the hands of the priest, and the conferring of the Holy Spirit by such all act, thereby blending, stabilizing and fixing the member in the ranks of the Catholic faith. The third sacrament by them mentioned is the holy Eucharist. By that they mean the Lord’s supper. Why man wants to invent new terms for Bible things is one of the strange ideas of the age, but with paganistic philosophies and phraseologies, he seeks to adorn that simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. Plenty of people today who repudiate Catholicism, speak almost invariably of the institution established by the Christ other than in the simple terms of Hob Writ. My friend, why do you want to do that? Can’t you be content to call Bible things by Bible names? Do you think that God made a mistake, and that you can give it a better name than the Holy Spirit, or are you seeking to be wise, above that which is written? Are you not violating that positive decree which says, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God"? Why not do that, and thus say to our infidel friends, that you really and truly believe God’s word?
Catholics think that when they come to the Eucharist, the priest, by his words, can change the substance of the bread and the fruit of the vine into the real body and the real blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence they talk about transubstantiation. I do not believe that the priest can any more change things material, outside of the laboratory, than can any other man in all the earth. The fourth sacrament, they style penance. By this they mean that a man guilty of sin must go to a priest in full contrition of spirit, humble himself in his presence, there make to him full confession, and pledge to God never to be guilty of a repetition of that act, and then put himself under the authority of the priest to make any sort of amends that may be demanded. Therefore, he says: "Mr. Pope, speak, impose on me any penalty whatsoever, and if I can satisfy you, it makes no difference what God may think about it." But again, No. 5, is the sacrament of extreme unction —another thing you would never learn of if you had no book but the Bible from which to get the information. What is meant by that? When a soul is subject to all impending crisis, or to immediate danger, either spiritual or physical, the priest comes again, takes the oil and pours upon his head, and thus prepares him for the ordeal through which he is to pass. Why wait till a man gets square up against it, with one foot in the grave and the other, so to speak, upon the proverbial banana peeling? If there be any virtue, and if any praise in it, why not anoint a well man and prevent the danger to which he may be exposed?
Sacrament No. 6, the giving of holy orders. What does that mean? It is a preparation on the part of a young convert, so that he may receive such power as will enable him to perform the sacred rites. He is a candidate, for instance, for a priest. Now then, the older priests, by virtue of their superiority and unusual power, may impose upon the young the ability and the right to administer the things belonging to their system.
"Then Sacrament No. 7 is that which they call matrimony. By it they mean all indissoluble union. The Catholics grant no divorces. I am not disposed to offer words of criticism, but rather words of commendation on that particular tenet and emphatic declaration of the Catholic Church. It matters not with them whether it be but a common couple, or a crowned head; they boldly say, "No!"
Friends, I have in brief outlined to you the salient features of Catholicism as it stood universally triumphant over the affairs of men about 400 years ago. Let me say to you that for a thousand years preceding that time the world was in subjection to this ecclesiastical organization, and during that time the Bible was chained to the pulpit. No man was allowed to see it, to read it, or have contact with its precious truths except the dignitaries of that wonderful organization. The world, therefore, was shrouded in darkness, and the crack of the whip from the powers that be meant for the subjects to march according to the edicts handed down by him who claimed to be infallible, the representative of God, the viceregent of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I am glad to tell you, in advance of succeeding talks, that just about this time, the clouds began to vanish, the glimmering light was seen to burst upon the earth, and the world, religiously and ecclesiastically, was to be privileged to throw aside the shackles, come from underneath the cover, and thus to exercise itself in the thoughts and deliberations that would be accountable and amenable to God alone.
You and I ought to rejoice that we live this side of that period when such a state of religion was covering the face of the earth. The great movement of which this was, possibly, a preparation was soon to burst upon the world—not in all of its fullness, but in great splendor and glory. In this period of infidelity, in this age of worldly wisdom, when good men and good women have announced allegiance to human authority and human organizations, it is all exceeding timely matter for us to think on whither we are drifting; whether or not, we are exalting the Book of God triumphant o’er human creeds and confessions of faith.
It is time, and a challenge comes to every man to rally to that institution of which t~ere is a record on the pages of God’s Book. So far as I am concerned, I want membership in no institution concerning which there is not one word or one syllable in all of the Book of God. I want to be nothing, do nothing, practice nothing, that is not as old as the New Testament. When the world shall come to the adoption of that principle, and make it good in concrete application, the very angels of heaven will rejoice, and once more there will reverberate through the eternal regions the glad angelic song, "Peace on earth, and good will to men."
We stand, my friends, in our own light when we are not banded together as a solid phalanx against all human ecclesiasticism. Look into that which I have thus briefly pictured. I am glad to. call upon my friends, those who honor me from time to time with their presence, and ask them, openly and above board, to cut loose from everything except Jesus Christ as their leader, prophet, priest and king. Renounce your allegiance to every flag except the blood-stained banner of Christ Jesus our Lord. Repudiate all booklets, declarations, articles of faith, which you cannot read directly on the pages of God’s Book become associated with no institution that does not bear the impress of divinity upon its brow, and the stamp of God’s image upon its very heart.
There is a ground big enough, wide enough, and broad enough for every son and daughter of Adam’s ruined and recreant race to occupy. In the church which He bought and built we can find our refuge and security.
God demands of us faith in the Christ, real penitence for every sin, the acknowledgment of the Christ with the lips, and all obedience to that commandment which, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit brings us into the promises of life eternal.
I am glad to announce to you the invitation. Come friends, in self-defense. Come not to gratify me. Come not to please any soul on earth, primarily, but come to please God in heaven, and to cause the approving smiles of Him who died for you to rest upon you.