The Church of Rome and Alphonsus Liguori.—The editor of the British Weekly, in his issue of 9th July, called the attention of Monsignor Fraser, Scots College, Rome, to the Moral System of this saint of the Romish Church, and asked the papal dignitary if the Church of Rome accepted Liguori’s System. The Monsignor’s reply is far from satisfactory. He reminds Dr. Robertson Nicoll that Kingsley made the same attack on Liguori’s Moral System more than forty years ago, and that he was replied to by Newman in the 1864 edition of his Apoloquia pro Vita sua. In the issue of 16th July Dr. Robertson Nicoll returns to the subject, and gives a list of quotations from Liguori’s Theologia Moralis which throw a livid light on the standard of morality accepted by this doctor and saint of the Church of Rome. About the middle of last century the Reformation Society, London, published a large volume containing extracts from Liguori’s writings.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori.—The most damaging indictment against the Church of Rome in connection with Liguori’s teaching is that it is not simply the teaching of a private individual but one who is recognised as a doctor of the Church, and so raised to the pedestal of Augustine or Aquinas, and added to all this, he has been canonised, and his writings publicly recommended by Pope Leo XIII. Dr. Robertson Nicoll quotes from the Pope’s letter, which appeared in the Tablet, 11th October, 1879, to the following effect: “Although the writings of the holy doctor, Alphonsus M. de Liguori, have been already spread throughout the whole world, with the greatest profit to the Christian cause, yet it is to be wished that they should become still more and more popular, and be placed in the hands of all. For with the greatest skill he directed and promoted the moral training of all. . . . In all these labours this is specially worthy of remark: that though he wrote most copiously, yet it became evident after a diligent examination of his writings, that they may be all perused by the faithful without any danger of stumbling.” The italics in the foregoing are ours.
A few Specimens of Liguori’s Teaching.—“A witness or defendant, when not legitimately questioned by the Judge, may swear that he does not know a crime which he really does know, understanding to himself that he does not know a crime about which he can be legitimately questioned, or that he does not know it so as to give evidence about it.” “A penitent questioned by his Confessor about a sin which he has confessed, can swear that he has not committed it, understanding aside that he has not committed anything which has not been confessed.” “Is it allowable to swear something false, adding in a low tone a true circumstance? . . . The Salamanca doctors explain it better. They say that it is allowable if the whisper can by any means be possibly perceived by the other, although its meaning is not caught, but not if it should in every respect remain concealed from him.” Other specimens much more repulsively offensive might easily be quoted, but we forbear. How such teaching can promote “the moral training of all,” and that the writings containing such teaching “may be all perused by the faithful”—to quote the words of the late Pope—“without any danger of stumbling,” is a problem in ethics which we do not care to tackle. The only explanation of this hideous moral obliquity is to be found in the name given by the Holy Spirit to the Church of Rome—the Mystery of Iniquity.
Is the Church of Rome a Branch of the Church of Christ?—Dr. Robertson Nicoll has recently discussed this question in a leading article in the British Weekly, and he answers the question in the affirmative. He brings forward in support of his view the honoured names of Dr. Charles Hodge and Cunningham. But with all due respect to the learned Dr. Nicoll, we feel more at one with the sentiments expressed in a letter to the editor, which, if it shows signs of illiteracy—and Dr. Robertson Nicoll does not attempt, in his editorial capacity, to improve these blemishes—is a sufficiently forcible piece of plain English as one could read. Here are a few sentences:—“I regret to say that you have not advanced one word of Scripture in support, but instead quoted a few men’s opinions. I would advise you to study more of the Word of God and less of the opinion of men. I have for some time doubted your Protestantism; now I doubt your Christianity. . . . God the Holy Ghost has called that same Church a whore—a mother of harlots—the abomination of the earth (Rev. xvii., whole chapter). That wicked and apostate Church has been drunken with the blood of God’s saints.”
The Eucharistic Congress in London.—As noticed in our last issue, this Congress, whose meetings were to be held in September, is now past; and as it was an event of momentous concern to this Protestant nation, we are devoting some of our notes to it. The ostensible purpose of the immense convocation was to bring before the British people the all-importance of the
Mass. The British Reformers had strong and expressive terms to describe this form of idolatry, and the far-sighted statesmen of Britain in days gone by managed to get inserted in the King’s Oath a sentence condemning the Mass as superstitious and blasphemous.
The Imperial Protestant Federation and the Eucharistic Procession in London.—A telegram was sent to Mr. Herbert Gladstone by Mr. Henry Miller urging the Home Secretary, on behalf of the London council of fifty-one Protestant societies, to relieve the Protestant feeling of the nation by forbidding the “Carrying of the Host” or wearing ecclesiastical vestments in the streets during the Roman Catholic Procession on Sabbath. The telegram warned the Home Secretary that responsibility for any riot or disorder on the occasion of the procession would rest with the Home Office officials.
The Papal Legate’s Opinion of his Reception in London.—”Reuter’s Agency is requested to state that Cardinal Vannutelli has been deeply touched by the warmth of his reception in London and by the respect and courtesy shown him by the crowds, Press, and, indeed, everyone with whom his Eminence has come in contact. His Eminence regards the Congress as one of the finest demonstrations yet witnessed of the close union existing between Roman Catholics all the world over. The Congress has brought together Churchmen from all parts of the world, both of Latin and Oriental rite, but, in the opinion of the Cardinal, the most interesting feature of the Eucharistic Congress from the English point of view is that, though, of course, it may be looked upon as international meeting, and therefore, largely a foreign gathering, it really is to an extent which may not yet have been fully realised, a manifestation of Imperial and British Roman Catholicism.” A London crowd, we regret to say, is not very fastidious about its idols, but, as Protestants, we cannot help feeling that it is a shame to a city like London to receive with open arms the representative of the Man of Sin.