To those who revere Patrick of Ireland as a saint, it must come as a shock to discover that he never embraced the Roman Catholic faith. On the contrary, his adherence to the apostolic faith would have, in later times, branded him as an heretical Protestant.

But in appropriating Patrick to herself, some two centuries after his death the Roman Church was simply behaving "true to form," for it was also by fraud that she arrogated to the popes, the supposed successors of Peter, the dogma of the infallibility and divine right of monarchy.

In order to produce some semblance of authority for a system of papal primacy, Pope Nicholas I seized upon ancient fabricated documents known as the Isidorian Decretals. The fraud was later exposed by Roman and non-Roman sources alike. But during the interval, the fraudulent documents had served their purpose and established in the minds of Christendom a false premise.

We here cite evidence as published in "Source Book for Bible Students", 1919, pp.256,257.

"Isidorian Decretals, CONTENTS OF.--The compilation contains in Part I, besides a few other pieces, the fifty so-called Apostolic Canons received by the church (vid. I. 234, II. 11) and fifty-nine alleged, but all spurious, letters of the Roman bishops, from Clemens down to Meichiades (d. 314), in chronological order; in Part II there follow, after a few other pieces (of which the Donatio Constantini ad Sylvestrum is the most important) the canons of many councils, beginning with that of Nicaea, essentially following the Hispana (Falsification is only perceptible in one passage); Part III gives the decretal letters of the Roman bishops from Sylvester to Gregory II (d. 731), of which thirty-five are spurious. The author has therefore admitted a number of already existing anonymous pieces, and the Epistle of Clement to James (from the Clementine Homilies), the Donatio Constantini and the Constitutio Sylvestri, but has invented the most of the spurious papal letters, for doing which Rufinus, Cassiodorus, and the Liber Pontificalis must have supplied him with the historical substratum, and older ecclesiastical authors, acts of councils, etc., with the material. --"History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages," Dr Wilhelm Moeller, translated by Andrew Rutherfurd, B. D., p.161 2d edition. London: George Allen & Co.,1910.

Isidorian Decretals, PURPOSE OF--To bring men to listen to, and receive, this new system of ecclesiastical law, which was so very different from the ancient system, there was need of ancient documents and records, with which it might be enforced and defended against the assaults of opposers. Hence the Roman pontiffs procured the forgery, by their trusty friends, of conventions, acts of councils, epistles, and other documents; by which they might make it appear that from the earliest ages of the Church, the Roman pontiffs possessed the same authority and power which they now claimed. Among these fraudulent supports of the Romish power, the so-called Decretal Epistles of the pontiffs of the first centuries, hold perhaps the first rank. They were produced by the ingenuity of an obscure man, who falsely assumed the name of Isidore, a Spanish bishop. Some vestiges of these fabricated epistles appeared in the preceding century; but they were first published and appealed to in support of the claims of the Roman pontiffs, in this [ninth] century.--"Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," Mosheim, book 3, cent. 9, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 8 (Vol. II, pp. 199,200). London: Longman & Co., 1841.

Isidorian Decretals, IMPORTANCE OF.--The theory of the papal monarchy over the church was not the result merely of grasping ambition and intrigue on the part of individual popes; it corresponded rather to the deep-seated belief of Western Christendom. This desire to unite Christendom under the Pope gave meaning and significance to the forged decretals bearing the name of Isidore, which formed the legal basis of papal monarchy. This forgery did not come from Rome, but from the land of the Western Franks. It set forth a collection of pretended decrees of early councils and letters of early popes, which exalted the power of the bishops, and at the same time subjected them to the supervision of the Pope. The Pope was set forth as universal bishop of the church, whose confirmation was needed for the decrees of any council. The importance of the forgery lay in the fact that it represented the ideal of the future as a fact of the past, and displayed the papal primacy as an original institution of the church of Christ.

"The Papacy did not originate this forgery; but it made haste to use it. Pope Nicholas I claimed and exercised the powers of supreme ecclesiastical authority, and was happy in being able to exercise them in the cause of moral right.--"A History of the Papacy," M. Creighton, D.D., Vol. I, pp.13,14. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899.

Isidorian Decretals, INFLUENCE OF.-No document has ever had a more remarkable history, or a more lasting influence on the relations of society, than that in which this feeling found expression, and which is known in modern times by the name of the False or Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. A collection of decretal letters made by Isidore of Seville had long been in great repute in the West, based on the earlier collection made by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, containing the apostolic canons, the canons of the most important councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the decretal letters of the popes from the time of Siricius to that of Anastasius II.

Suddenly there appeared at Mainz, in the time of Archbishop Autcar, a collection purporting to be that of Isidore, brought, it was said, from Spain by Archbishop Riculf, but containing a series of documents hitherto unknown--fifty-nine letters and decrees of the twenty oldest bishops of Rome from Clement to Melchiades, the Donation of Constantine, thirty-nine new decrees of popes and councils between the time of Sylvester and Gregory II, and the acts of several unauthentic councils. The chief points to which the spurious decrees were directed were, the exaltation of the episcopal dignity, the security of the clergy against the attacks of laymen, the limitation of the power of metropolitans, reducing them to mere instruments of the Pope, and a consequent enlargement of the privileges of the See of Rome.--"The See of Rome in the Middle Ages," Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, B.C.L., M.A., pp.89,90. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1870.

We here reprint an article by C.S. Longacre from the "Signs of the Times", Nov. 1, 1948, which illustrates Rome's problems in attempting to establish the dogma of Apostolic Succession.

VATICAN REVISES ITS LIST OF POPES

The new official directory recently issued by the Vatican after investigating the nineteen-hundred-year line of succession of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, dropped six popes from its old list in the former directory, and placed two more popes in the doubtful column, and listed two new popes who had not been listed until now. Also the dates of the pontificates of seventy-four popes were changed from what they were before, and Pope Dono II, who had been listed as a Roman pontiff back in the tenth century of the Christian era, "was actually a person who never existed," says the new directory. And, the third and fifth popes, listed from the beginning of popes, namely Cleto, a Roman, and Anacleto, an Athenian, are combined in the new list "as one and the same person." Pope Pius XII, the present pope, who was listed in the old directory as the 261st successor of St. Peter, is now lower in the list, and if the doubtful popes are dropped, he will descend two more notches in the list of alleged popes.

One wonders how much reliance as to accuracy can be placed in the present list. One thing is absolutely certain, the Apostle Peter never claimed to be a pope of the early Christian church. In his first epistle, Peter writes about the position he occupied in the church, saying: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.... Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:1-4.

He said, I "am also an elder." He placed himself on the same level as all the other elders in the churches, and not as a pope or "lord over God's heritage." None of the early church leaders listed by the Catholic Church hierarchy as popes of the Roman Catholic Church for the first three centuries ever claimed the title of pope or set forth any claim that they were the chief bishop of all the churches throughout Christendom. In fact, all the bishops for the first three centuries of the Christian era claimed equal rank.

A rivalry sprang up during the fourth century among the bishops of the Christian churches in Jerusalem in Palestine, Alexandria in Egypt, Constantinople in Greece, Carthage in Africa, Antioch in Asia, and Rome in Italy. The bishop of the church in Jerusalem claimed priority rights because it was the first and oldest Christian church established in Christendom. Doctor Kock, of the Catholic Divinity School at Braunsberg, says that Saint Cyprian, who was bishop of Carthage and who died in A.D. 258, was absolutely ignorant of any difference between the official rank and standing of the bishop of Rome and that of any other bishop; that at the close of the third century of the Christian era there was no idea entertained among churchmen either of a pope, a papacy, or the doctrine of infallibility; and that up to the time of Saint Cyprian's death there was only a hint made of a general subjection to the Roman See, and when it was first raised it was absolutely repellent to the powerful bishop of Carthage, Saint Cyprian. Some of the bishops that are now listed in the Catholic Register as popes of the Roman Catholic Church, were not only opposed to the church's having a pope, but never knew they would be listed in the future as Roman pontiffs. The popes listed for the first three centuries of the Christian era are mere inventions of the hierarchy of later centuries. The facts of history, as well as the New Testament record, contradict the doctrine of the Primacy of Peter as being the first Roman pontiff.

It is libel on Christ to claim that Christ founded such an institution as the Papacy. There is no evidence in the New Testament that Christ appointed a visible head on earth to exercise authority over the church. Yet we read in all Catholic literature that the pope is the vicar of Christ, the head of the Papacy, and appointed as such by Christ. Such a claim is a travesty upon the teachings of Christ.

Christ knew that many of His professed followers would misuse His name and claim authority for their iniquitous doings in His name. In closing His remarkable sermon on the mount He said: "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils; and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." Matt. 7:21-23. To invoke the name of Christ as authority for the establishment of the Papacy is nothing less than sacrilege.

The Roman hierarchy needs to give further study to the revision of the humanly invented list of popes. Instead of dropping six popes that they had formerly listed and placing two more on the doubtful list, the Catholic Church needs to drop all the bishops that are listed as popes prior to the Church Council which finally determined that the bishop of Rome, because of his strategic position at the capital of the Roman Empire, should take priority over all the metropolitan bishops. That did not happen until we come to the fourth century of the Christian era. Constantine the Great, emperor of the Roman Empire, soon after his nominal conversion to Christianity in A.D. 312, elevated himself to the head of the Christian churches and convened councils and presided over them, and regulated the external affairs of the church of Christianity. He united the church and the state, and remodelled the government of the church after the government of the state. In the church he appointed patriarchs, exarchs, archbishops, canons, prebendaries, prelates and priests, to correspond with the various secular offices and dignitaries in the state. He appointed five patriarchs who formerly were bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. At first great stress was laid upon the fact that all these bishops who had been appointed as patriarchs over their own dioceses, stood on the same equality in rank. At this time no preference was given to the bishop and patriarch of the diocese of Rome. When the bishop and patriarch of Rome at first began to exercise arbitrary authority over the other patriarchal bishops in Africa and Asia, these latter bishops with great force and resolution resisted the arrogance of the bishop of Rome. The blasphemous dogma that the bishop of Rome is the supreme head of the church, the vicar of Christ, and the vicegerent of God upon earth, had never yet been heard of and would have been rejected by all the bishops of every diocese in the Christian churches during the first three centuries of the Christian era.

None of the bishops of the metropolitan areas were appointed at this time by the bishop of Rome, but all bishops claimed that they derived their ambassadorship directly from Jesus Christ as the head of the church. It was during the fourth century that the bishop and patriarch of Rome was invested by the emperors of Rome with a superior degree of power and authority over all other bishops, because of his political connections with the Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome possessed the richest and most influential diocese, the most intimate political connections with the Roman emperors and lawmakers. He appeared in great splendour of dress, rode in the most costly coaches, enjoyed sumptuous feasts, and outdid the sovereign princes in the expenses of their tables in entertaining politicians in order to gain political favours. The spirit of worldly pride and domination, together with political influence, finally elevated through intrigue the bishop of Rome not only to a superior position over all other bishops of the church, but to a supremacy over earthly kings and rulers, and required them to bow their necks under his autocratic heel of supreme authority.

To claim that Christ appointed all these popes to lord it over God's heritage is an insult to Saint Peter, who said he was only an "elder," and it is sacrilegious and blasphemous to attribute such a system of human exaltation and arrogance to Jesus Christ, the meek and lowly Nazarene who said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

The following article by J.B. Conley taken from the "Signs of the Times" May 24,. 1948, biblically identifies the antichrist.

The word "antichrist" comes from two Greek words--"Anti" and "Christos." Dr. Strong defines the word "anti" to mean "opposite, i.e., instead or because of, in the room of." "Christos" being the Greek rendering of "Christ," the word "antichrist" then means "opposite to," "instead of," or "in the room of" Christ.

Four times only is the word "antichrist" used in the Scriptures. In each instance the Apostle John is the writer of the epistle in which the word is used. He wrote his epistles toward the end of the first century. Each time the word is used it has reference to one who was operating already in the world in which John was living, nineteen centuries ago.

Ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists." "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus it the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:18,22.

"This is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John 4:3.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 2 John 7.

Each of these scriptures indicates clearly that the antichrist whom the infant church had been expecting to appear was then operating. One of the reasons for the writing of John's epistles was to expose the activities of this deceiver.

Many years before John wrote his epistles the Apostle Paul made his last journey among the churches. Gathering the elders and bishops together, he gave them a last warning. Solemnly and earnestly the aged apostle foretold a time when from within the church itself apostasy would arise: "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.

A little later, in a letter which he was writing to the church at Thessalonica, in which he spoke of the second coming of Jesus, he added this warning: "For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? ... For the mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thess. 2:3-7.

From these scriptures we glean the following identification marks of antichrist:

1. He denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:18,22.

2. He had appeared in John's day. 1 John 4:3.

3. He denied that Jesus had come "in the flesh." 2 John 7.

4. He would arise from within the early church as a result of apostasy or "a falling away." Acts 20:29,30.

5. He would presume to sit in "the temple of God," claiming the prerogatives of God. 2 Thess. 2:3-7

Fundamental Protestant opinion has ever claimed that the marks of "antichrist" find their complement in the Roman Catholic hierarchy and its unbiblical system of religion. This interpretation was strongly held by such men as John Wycliffe and the later English Reformers Tyndale, Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley; and by John Huss of Bohemia and Martin Luther of Germany, together with John Knox of Scotland. In fact, such was the universal teaching of all Protestantism in the days of the Reformation. Dr. Charles H. Wright expresses the Protestant position clearly when he says:

"In all ages of the church from the days of Gregory the Great down to the present, men have pointed to the Papacy as the fulfilment of the prophecy. That interpretation is set forth in the homilies of the Church of England and by all the Reformed churches. The interpretation, however, has been ignored or rejected by critics, for reasons which need not be specified. It can, however, stand all the tests of criticism."

As a result of the widespread preaching of this identity of antichrist, the Catholic Church became alarmed and set afoot other interpretations with which to counteract the identification of the Papacy as the antichrist. Accordingly, the Jesuit Alcasar wrote emphasizing the "preterist" system of interpretation which claimed that antichrist had appeared and had been overthrown before the days of the popes. Another Jesuit, Ribera by name, about the year 1580 endeavoured to confuse the issue by introducing the "futurist" view, in which he propelled the appearance of antichrist so far into the future as to relieve the pressure of public opinion from the popes of Rome. These two attempts to confuse the issue and to screen the Papacy from detection have met with a degree of success. Some Protestants have been so far influenced by this teaching that they have surrendered the fundamental teaching of the Reformation and have embraced the confused and uncertain teachings of Alcasar and Ribera.

But the Scriptures have placed the identity of antichrist beyond either guesswork or confusion. The Bible has clearly named the guilty one. John says that he denies that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 2 John 7. Let this be the first mark of antichrist by which his identity will be placed beyond dispute. The verse does not say that antichrist denies that Jesus is come, but that he denies "He is come in the flesh." Far from denying the existence of Christ, the text suggests that antichrist teaches the Christ has come but teaches a doctrine about his coming which denies that "He is come in the flesh."

If the Catholic Church is guilty, as the Protestant Reformers claimed her to be, then her teaching concerning the nature of Jesus in His incarnation into this world as a babe will reveal it. Let us examine that teaching in the light of the text before us.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was born into the world through Mary, who was a direct descendant of Adam. By inheritance she partook of Adam's nature. Adam's nature was mortal and subject to death as a result of the transgression of God's will in Eden. His flesh was by nature that of the "children of wrath." Mary partook of this nature in all its aspects. She was a representative of the whole human race, and in no way different from others descended from Adam's line. She was "favoured among women" only because she was the one chosen of God through whom the "mystery of godliness was to be made manifest," and through whom Jesus was to be incarnated into the fleshly state of Adam's race. It was God's purpose that through a divine miracle Jesus should be brought from heaven, where He had been one with the Father in the Godhead, to be born into the human family, there to partake of all the temptations to which Adam's race is subject. This was possible only as He would partake of the nature of Adam's race. Of this Paul says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. ...Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Heb 2:14-17.

If further evidence were needed the same writer supplied it. In 1 Tim. 3:16 he records: "Great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh." Here, he says, is the mystery of godliness, the ability of Jesus to come from heaven, suffer Himself to be manifest in human flesh, and yet to live sinlessly.

This latter fact antichrist was to deny. He was to deny that Jesus came in a divine manifestation which brought Him in all phases of His nature to partake of the weakness of Adam's race. He would deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," the same flesh as that of mortal men.

On this first count, the denial that Jesus "is come in the flesh," the Catholic Church stands convicted of guilt and thus is identified by the marks of antichrist. Through the teaching of the "Immaculate Conception of Mary," that she was preserved from all original sin, they in theory provide "different flesh" from that of the rest of Adam's race to be the avenue through which Jesus was incarnated into the plan of salvation. To state their teaching with authority it will be the best to quote our evidence from Catholic authors.

Our first proof will be from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons in his book, "Faith of our Fathers," pages 203,204. He says: "We define that the blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception ... was preserved free from the taint of original sin. Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin."

Cardinal Gibbons has here clearly stated the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary. It is a teaching not taught in the Bible, but which has been introduced by Catholic teachers who claim to have authority even above that of the Scriptures, in matters of doctrine.

Here I would ask my readers both Protestant and Catholic, to ponder carefully what this teaching does to the gospel plan. It means that if Mary was born without sin and was preserved from sin for the express purpose of bringing Jesus into the world, then Jesus was born of holy flesh, which was different from that of the rest of Adam's race. This means that He did not take upon Himself our kind of flesh and blood, and in His incarnation did not identify Himself with humanity. It means, too, that He was not tempted "in all points" as we were. It means that Paul was all wrong when he wrote the Book of Hebrews in which he declares that Jesus "also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh as the rest of Adam's race that "in all things" he was made "like unto His brethren." Heb. 2:14-17. But above all this, if the Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus, not having come within reach of humanity by partaking of man's nature, cannot be the "one mediator between God and men." Nor can we "come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb 4:16. All this plays conveniently into the hands of the Catholic plan of salvation, it opens wide the door for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the respective "saints," who form part of the papal mediatorial system. And moreover, it places in the hands of the priesthood the power to usurp authority which God in the Scriptures has never delegated to them--that of being controllers of the approaches to the throne of mercy.

At this stage of our review of the subject of antichrist, I believe all fairminded people will acknowledge that if the Papacy is not the antichrist it has been singularly unfortunate in being so like the scriptural description of him. In the papal claim that Jesus was born of one who had been "preserved from every taint of original sin" and who, "unlike the rest of the children of Adam ... was never subject to sin," we find the first mark of antichrist indelibly implanted.

The Papacy certainly teaches that Jesus Christ did "not come in the flesh."

The next mark of antichrist which we shall consider is spoken of in the writings of both John and Paul. John says that under the title of "anti, christ" this one will deny the "Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22. Paul explains how this will be done. He indicates that this deceiver will not deny the existence of the Father and the Son, but rather that he will usurp the position of both by sitting "in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:4.

The temple of God is the church. It is thus defined by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian believers. "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder,l have laid the foundation.... But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon... Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Cor. 3:10-16. The church upon earth is God's spiritual temple and it was in this spiritual temple that antichrist was to endeavour to usurp the place of God. Paul says "For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess. 2:3-7.

It is in the matter of receiving the worship of the worshippers that this one assumes God's place in the church. He presumes to exalt himself above God in receiving the worship due to God, God's existence will-not be denied, but He will be given only an obscure position in the system of worship which is headed by antichrist, while antichrist himself assumes the authority of God and receives the worship which God should receive. True Protestants of every age have ever believed that this scripture exposes the activities of the papal hierarchy, as from the popes to the priesthood, men have usurped God's place in claiming authority equal to God's, and with it the right to take God's place above Him in the affairs of the church on earth. Claiming the power to forgive sins in the confessional, this priesthood "sits in the temple of God," showing itself "that it is God." For its pope and priesthood the Roman Catholic Church even presumes to claim titles which belong to God and God alone.

In the "Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII," page 193, the following statement appears: "But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore requires, together with a perfect accord in one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the church and to the Roman Pontiff as to God Himself."

Again, on page 304, this astonishing statement is found: "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty."

No greater proof could be found than the testimony of the accused himself. Here, from the lips of one of the greatest popes, is the evidence of guilt--the identification of the hierarchy of the Roman church with the marks of the antichrist of Scripture.

While recognising the pope to be the supreme head of the church on earth, the Papacy also recognises that the priest within his sphere also has the mantle of divine power resting upon him to such an extent that he becomes the local vicegerent of Heaven. From one of the highest Catholic sources we glean the following statements which put the identity of the Papacy with the antichrist of Scripture beyond all question:

"The priest has the power of the keys or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgement of His priests ... The Sovereign Master of the universe only follows the servant by confirming in heaven all that the latter decides upon earth." - "Dignity and Duties of the Priest," St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, pages 27,28. New York, Benziger Bros., 1888.

Here we have before us the position claimed by the Catholic priesthood. All power is in their hands. God simply does their bidding. Believing this, the Catholic people fear the priesthood, who they believe have absolute control of the destiny of their souls.

But there is more to follow. Having separated the sinner from direct access to God, from the direct mediatorial approach to God through Christ, they now exalt the priest to the position of being the sole dispenser of grace and favour for the sinner. Even Christ is said to be subject to this earthly man to whom, the Catholic Church says, have been given the keys of heaven and hell. Having robbed the sinner of the simple gospel approach to God through the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, this earthly priesthood now proceeds to substitute a continual earthly sacrifice of the Mass to take the place of the all-sufficient sacrifice of the One who "was once offered to bear the sins of many." Heb. 9:28. Having done this, it is now necessary to exalt an earthly priesthood to a place of power from which they can claim divine attributes which rightly belong to Jesus, who the Scriptures declare is our "high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1); and who "hath an unchangeable priesthood," and who is also able "to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." Heb. 7:24,25.

Of the "sacrifice of the Mass," Ligouri says: "If the person of the Redeemer had not yet been in the world, the priest, by pronouncing the words of consecration, would produce this great person of a Man-God. '0 wonderful dignity of the priests!' cries St. Augustine; 'in their hands, as in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, the Son of God becomes incarnate.' Hence priests are called the parents of Jesus Christ....

"Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator.... 'He that created me without me is Himself created by me.'"-"Dignity and Duties of the Priest," pages 32,33.

What is supposed to take place during this ceremony is explained by the same writer in the following statement: "In obedience to the words of the priests--Hoc Est Corpus Meum--God Himself descends on the altar .... He comes wherever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands... .They may if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle..they may, if they choose, eat His flesh, and give Him for the food of others." -Id., pages 26,27.

Thus, according to Catholic teaching, through the creative power vested in an earthly priesthood, a wafer suddenly becomes the actual body of Jesus Christ. The following quotation expresses this belief from a Catholic authority:

"But suddenly, amid the silence of the breathless multitude, the priest utters the divine lifegiving giving words of consecration; and that which was bread and wine, is bread and wine no longer, but the true body and blood of our Lord Himself. It is the same body that was born of the blessed Virgin Mary, that died for us upon the cross, that was raised again to life, and that even now sits at the right hand of God the Father."--"The Holy Mass, the Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead," M. Muller, pages 174,175, New York, 1876.

On count number two, on the testimony of its own writers, the Catholic hierarchy stands convicted of having the identification mark of antichrist "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:4.

Here we should pause long enough to consider what all this means. By denying that Jesus "is come in the flesh," the exponents of this doctrine separate the worshippers from direct access to the throne of grace. No sinner, therefore, can come to God to ask forgiveness for his sins because he has no "kinsman" to plead his cause or to claim the mercy of heaven on his behalf. Moreover, there is still a gulf between the sinner and Christ which must be bridged by other intercessors such as Mary and the "saints." How far away from the needy sinner this unscriptural rigmarole places the throne of mercy! But this is not all. If the pope holds the position on earth "of God Almighty" and the priest in the celebration of the Mass becomes "the creator of his Creator," as the wafer upon the altar becomes "the actual body of our Lord," it follows then that the means of salvation in the Roman Catholic Church is associated with supposedly transformed bread and wine miraculously changed in the hands of the priest. This gives the priest all power over his congregation, for in his hands alone is held the deliverance of the people from their sins. Thus, sitting "in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," he places stumbling-block after stumbling-block in the way of the troubled sinner. First, a wafer Christ has to be created, then the saints invoked, and the Virgin Mary petitioned; and finally, through her intercessions, Christ is approached to do that for the sinner which the Bible says from His great heart of love He has already done. By thus separating the sinner from direct access to the Father's-throne of mercy, through Jesus the "one mediator between God and men," the Catholic hierarchy obscures the simplicity of the plan of salvation, exalts an earthly priesthood above high priesthood of Jesus, and submits the rank and file of the people to spiritual slavery, the severity of which is determined by the moods and judgments of earthly men.

But God never ordained it so. The Roman Catholic teaching is a travesty of truth: it is a counterfeit gospel which finds no support in the Sacred Scriptures. As an overshadowing cloud arising from beyond the horizons of our western world, in the unwatered lands of Egypt and Babylon it would spread itself over our fair land to shut out the blessed sunshine of the gospel of our Lord. It bears the marks of antichrist, indelibly imprinted.......There can be only one effective answer—a reconsecration of heart and life to the gospel standards of the Word of God and a revival of the heaven-born evangel of Reformation times; that men everywhere should have placed before them the simplicity of the gospel story that Jesus, God's only begotten Son, incarnate from heaven, became the Son of man and "elder brother" of the human race; that He lived as men ought to live, being "tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin"; that He died the death that man deserved to die, thus tasting death for every man; that He is risen, ascended to the Father's presence; that He is the "one mediator between God and men"; that He can save to the uttermost all who "come unto God by Him"; and that He invites all, however vile and sinful, to come "boldly unto the throne of grace ... and find grace to help in time of need." This is the heaven-ordained answer of the Scriptures to the man-made, soul-enslaving "other gospel" of antichrist.

Jesuits, the name generally given to the members of the Society of Jesus, a religious order in the Roman Catholic Church, founded in 1539. This society may be defined, in its original conception and well-avowed object, as a body of highly trained religious men of various degrees, bound by the three personal vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, together with, in some cases, a special vow to the Pope's service, with the object of laboring for the spiritual good of themselves and their neighbours. They are declared to be mendicants and enjoy all the privileges of the other mendicant orders. They are governed and live by constitutions and rules, mostly drawn up by their founder, St Ignatius of Loyola, and approved by the popes. Their proper title is "Clerks Regulars of the Society of Jesus," the word Societas being taken as synonymous with the original Spanish term, Compania; perhaps the military term Cohors might more fully have expressed the original idea of a band of spiritual soldiers living under martial law and discipline. The ordinary term "Jesuit" was given to the society by its avowed opponents; it is first found in the writings of Calvin and in the registers of the Parlement of Paris as early as 1552.

Constitution and Character.--The formation of the society was a masterpiece of genius on the part of a man [Loyola] who was quick to realise the necessity of the moment. Just before Ignatius was experiencing the call to conversion, Luther had begun his revolt against the Roman Church by burning the papal bull of excommunication on the 10th of December 1520. But while Luther's most formidable opponent was thus being prepared in Spain, the actual formation of the society was not to take place for eighteen years. Its conception seems to have developed very slowly in the mind of Ignatius. It introduced a new idea into the church. Hitherto all regulars made a point of the choral office in choir. But as Ignatius conceived the church to be in a state of war, what was desirable in days of peace ceased when life of the cloister had to be exchanged for the discipline of the camp; so in the sketch of the new society which he laid before Paul III, Ignatius laid down the principle that the obligation of the breviary should be fulfilled privately and separately and not in choir. The other orders, too, were bound by the idea of a constitutional monarchy based on the democratic spirit. Not so with the society. The founder placed the general for life in an almost uncontrolled position of authority, giving him the faculty of dispensing individuals from the decrees of the highest legislative body, the general congregations. Thus the principle of military obedience was exalted to a degree higher than that existing in the older orders, which preserved to their members certain constitutional rights.--The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XV, art. "Jesuits," p.337, 11th edition.

"I, (name), now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the archangel, the blessed St. John Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and the saints and sacred host of heaven, and to you my ghostly father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that His Holiness Pope Urban is Christ's vicar-general, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to his Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ, he bath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed: therefore to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine, and His Holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatsoever: especially against the now pretended authority and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother church of Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or state, named Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Church of England, of the Calvinist, Huguenots, and of others of the name of Protestants, to be damnable, and they themselves are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare, that I will help, assist and advise all, or any of His Holiness' agents in any place, wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestants' doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the mother church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agent's counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstance, whatsoever; but to execute all what shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you my ghostly father, or by any of this sacred convent. All which I, (name), do swear by the blessed Trinity, and blessed sacrament, which I now am to receive, to perform, and on my part to keep inviolably. And do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real intentions, and to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the eucharist; and witness the same further with my hand and seal in the face of this holy convent." ("Foxes and Firebrands," Usher.)

Sabbath Language Chart