ROMANISM. 



55 



met in a manly way, that Paul 

 " withstood him to the face because 

 he was to be blamed" (Gal. ii, n), 

 for being a " dissembler," and as 

 guilty of " dissimulation " (verses 

 11-16). He unquestionably occu- 

 pied the position of priority, and 

 priority only, at first, but afterwards, 

 as his character or capacity develop- 

 ed itself, a secondary one, that of a 

 servant, messenger or deputy, in 

 carrying out his colleagues' deci- 

 sions ; and then he became the Apos- 

 tle to the Jews. And was it on this 

 rolling stone that the Church was 

 built, and through whom the Pope 

 claims to be infallible in faith and 

 morals, in virtue of merely being 

 his so-called successor as bishop of 

 Rome, when no positive evidence 

 can be shown that " Blessed Peter " 

 ever was at Rome, and much to 

 show that he never was bishop of it ? 

 In all their allusions to their Church, 

 Romanists never mention the 

 Greeks, for the reason that they are 

 heretics and schismatics from that 

 Church, that is, according to their 

 theories, from the Church, having 

 broken away from it when they 

 formed about a third of its num- 

 bers, after having been founded 

 and, as it were, colonized by it, the 

 mother Church in which Christianity 

 altogether had its origin and was de- 

 veloped ; and from which they sepa- 

 rated, as the United States parted 

 from their mother country, but un- 

 der somewhat different circum- 

 stances. 



Never, in all my conversations 

 with Romanists, could I get one of 

 them to enter upon that subject, or 

 even allow it to be discussed, for the 

 reason that they can advance no 

 argument in proof of their own le- 

 gitimacy ; but they are very brave 

 when the question is between Rome 

 and the rest of the West, while they 

 will scowl when the Eastern Church 

 is mentioned to them. 



The Pope should be required, in 

 legal phraseology, to " prove his 

 pedigree " on the following points : 



i st. Was St. Peter in any way in- 

 fallible, that is, when " speaking ex 

 cathedra" or otherwise ? Or did he 

 ever personally speak ex cathedra 

 at all ? 



zd. Did he ever pardon sins, not 

 as against himself or the Church, 

 but as against God, so that they 

 could not be charged against the 

 sinner in a future state ? 



If neither of these can be proved 

 of him, then his so-called successors, 

 and their priests, in claiming such 

 attributes, as being inherited or in 

 any way derived from or through 

 him, must be impostors ; without 

 raising the question whether Peter 

 or any of the Apostles transmitted 

 such power to any who have since 

 claimed it, assuming that it was 

 possessed by the Apostles at first ; 

 or asking why Romanists do not 

 also claim the power of healing the 

 sick, raising the dead, or working 

 the other miracles of the Apostles. 



3<r/. When the Romans seceded 

 from the Church, under the circum- 

 stances mentioned, did they not 

 thereby become heretics and schism- 

 atics ? If they did, they are, accord- 

 ing to their own theories, no better 

 than heathens, outside of the pale 

 of salvation. 



4//z. Did St. Peter exercise any 

 dominion over the rest of the Apos- 

 tles, and was he ever at Rome, and 

 if so, was he the bishop of it ? 



$th. Assuming that he was at 

 Rome, and the bishop of it, can the 

 Pope prove he is his legitimate suc- 

 cessor ? That is, can he show that 

 every link connecting him with 

 " Blessed Peter " was genuine, ac- 

 cording to the rule of consecration 

 that requires that every one con- 

 tributing to the consecration during 

 the past, and spreading out in ev- 

 ery direction, up to the time of the 

 Apostles, had no flaw or base alloy 

 in it ? Or if that rule would be too 

 arbitrary and comprehensive, what 

 other one would he adopt ; or what 

 does he mean by consecration, as con- 

 veying anything from the Apostles ? 



