"If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."-Isaiah viii. 20. MANUAL OF THE TRUE Or, Short Answers of a Disciple of the Bible to the principal questions of the Romish controversy. By Dr. Cæsar Malan, of Geneva. (Translated from the French.) SECOND CONTROVERSY-THE CHURCH. (Continued from p. 83.) Stranger. Still, at least, (I repeat the priest,) the Church of Rome is ancient and durable. Disciple.-Listen. There are two ancient religions in the world, and no more: that of man's merit, and that of the grace of God. Abel was of the latter, and Cain of the first. To which does Rome belong? For an error does not become truth from its antiquity. If then the Bible on one side, and history on the other, not only declare that certain doctrines are erroneous, but that besides, they have been proved to be of recent origin, what do you think of the antiquity or the durability of a Church, in which, for example, the dogma of the Invocation of the Virgin dates but from the year 450; that of the Worship of Images from the year 786 and 842; that of the Celibacy of the Priests from 1070; that of the Ceremonies of the Mass from 420 to 1090; that of Communion in one VOL. VI. kind only from 1431; that of the Sale of Indulgences from 1099 and 1520? &c. &c. Instead, therefore, of boasting of its antiquity, this Church ought much rather to admit her novelty, since she had no existence in the time of the Apostles. Stranger.-But, are not the miracles of the Church of Rome exclusive? Disciple.-Alas, yes! for Monseigneur Pierre Tobie, Bishop of Fribourg, in Switzerland, on the 14th of July, 1834, secured a patent right for the reading of the life of St. Philomena, Virgin and Martyr, and surnamed the Thaumaturge (Thaumaturgus, or worker of miracles) of the 19th century. Nothing can be more patent or exclusive, I admit, than the narrative of the miracles wrought by the bones of this saint. For as I read at the commencement, that "the bones of St. Philomena, discovered in 1802, in the catacombs of St. Priscilla at Rome, first became animated, then agitated with indignation, against an imprudent bishop who had seated himself on the coffin which contained them;" that "the dried-up blood of the saint transformed itself, in presence of many witnesses, into gold and ruby dust;" also that "a piece of papier mâché, which contained the bones, became animated with marvellous beauty, that it became adorned with an abundant head of hair, that its eyes opened and its mouth spake," &c. &c. I confess that these prodigies induced in me a feeling of grief rather than of disgust, and this fiction (of which there are a thousand similar instances in print) reminded me of that which the Bible declares of that man of sin, that son of perdition, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders (2 Thess. ii.); shewing thus, that these lying wonders are the proofs of an apostacy, and not of the Church of God. Stranger. And do you also reject the triumphs of the Church of Rome ? Disciple. Of what do you speak? Perhaps of its autos-da-fé in Spain, France, and Italy? Of its crusades-first against the Paulicians, then against the Lollards, and after against the Vaudois and Albigeois? Or do you speak of its Saint Bartholomew, which the medal of Gregory XIII. will eternise? Or of the proscriptions of Nismes, in 1815,-or of the tortures and poisonings of the Inquisition-or of its seductions or its abductions, secret and open, which in every age, and even in our own day, cause men to dread Rome, as one trembles before a ferocious beast, or at the approach of an assassin ? Ah! these are not the triumphs of the Church of Jesus, the weapons of which, it is written, are not carnal; (2 Cor. x. 4;) and of which it is also written, violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; (Isaiah Ix. 18;) but they are assuredly those of that great whore, who, the Bible says, is drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. (Rev. xvii.) Stranger. You do not believe then that the Pope has been established by God. Disciple.-I believe the Bible: how then can I believe this of him whom the Word of God evidently calls the Man of Sin? (2 Thess. ii. 3.) Stranger.-The Man of sin! you say. Disciple.-Judge for yourself. First, the Bible, in the enumeration of the Leaders of the Church, makes no mention of a Pope. (Eph. iv. 11.) To name him, is to go farther than that which is written:-it is to place the Holy Spirit himself in the Index. The Bible says, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The Pope is worshipped by the Cardinals who have elected him. (Adorant quem creant, they adore him whom they create, is inscribed on a Popish medal.) The Bible declares that God only is holy. The Pope calls himself" His Holiness." The Bible declares that every man is a liar. The Pope represents himself as infallible. The Bible says that Jesus is the only Head of the Church. The Pope makes himself its " earthly and visible head." The Bible represents the Holy Spirit as occupying the place of Christ here below. The Pope says, "It is I who am Christ's Vicar." The Bible declares that God alone pardons or condemns. The Pope says, "I retain and I remit sins." The Bible declares, lastly, that Jesus is the anointed of God, the Great High Priest, the Pastor and Bishop of souls. Pius VI. replies, "I, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Prince of Bishops, I am Moses by my authority, Peter by my dignity, and Christ even by mine anointing: also to me are committed the keys of heaven and the sheep of Christ." (Brev. Roman. Parisiis, 1775.) Now decide.-What is he who holds such language? Stranger. But were not the Popes the successors of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, who was, during twenty-five years, the first bishop of Rome? Disciple.-Empty fictions! For without arguing at greater length on this point, I would ask, if there had been this succession of Popes, of what service is it, since even the sons of Aaron, the Bible says, belonged not to a perfect state of things, because that, though many priests, they were not suffered to continue by reason of death (Heb. vii. 23). The Popes also are dead; their succession, consequently, if it ever had been, is useless. But since it has not had any existence; since about fifty schisms have cast it to the four winds Stranger.-Schisms, do you say, among the Popes? Disciple.-History declares it, when it tells us: Of Heretical Popes: certain among them having even denied the immortality of the soul, and sacrificed to idols. Now, Rome says, heresy breaks the succession: here then is schism. Of Popes whom Councils have called apostates, thieves, sorcerers, &c. Now, Rome declares, that apostacy and sorcery break the succession: these create schism. Of one Pope, who was only a layman. Now, Rome teaches, that without ordination there is no succession: here is schism. Of Popes who have been poisoners, mur derers, impure, and abominable. Now, Rome declares, that abominable crime breaks the succession: here then is schism. Of two and three Popes at the same time, and all three declared to be Anti-Popes. Now, Rome declares, that an Anti-Pope is not in the succession: here then is a schismatic. Lastly, of Popes, infallible in the Chair of St. Peter, and yet styled Sons of Satan. Now, Rome unhesitatingly declares, that a Son of Satan breaks the succession: this is schism. Stranger.-Is it not then a fact that St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles Disciple.-Stop, for you must know that the Bible declares, that the Apostles were all Brethren, and on an entire equality; that St. Paul declares he was not inferior to any among them; and if there was a difference, it was St. Paul and not St. Peter who had the best claim to be above the others, for he says, I laboured more abundantly than they all. (Matt. xxiii. 8; Gal. ii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 10.) Stranger. But did not Jesus say to Simon Peter, that he (Peter) should be the foundation-stone of the Church? Disciple. If St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, and if the Lord declared that that immovable truth is the rock on which his Church is founded, it is not certainly a mortal man that the Saviour has taken for the corner-stone. The Bible declares, that Jesus is that stone, and also, the only foundation of the Church that can be laid. (Matt. xvi. 16, xxi. 42; 1 Cor. iii. 11; Eph. ii. 20; 1 Peter ii. 6.) Stranger. But was not St. Peter the first Bishop of Rome during twenty-five years? Disciple. He certainly was not after his death. Stranger. After his death! Disciple. Since he could not be during his life Stranger.-Ah! what prevented him? Disciple. That peremptory reason which the law terms an alibi. Stranger.-What, was not St. Peter ever at Rome during his life? Disciple.-It is certain that he died before the year 66 or 67, the thirteenth of the Emperor Nero. Now in 52, the Bible informs us, he was either at Jerusalem, at Cæsarea, or at Antioch: he could not have been at Rome at the same time. In 58, he was not there, since he is not even named in the salutation in the Epistle to the Romans, written in that year by St. Paul. In 61, he was not, since we do not find that he was among the brethren who received St. Paul on his arrival in that city. In 63, he certainly was not, since St. Paul makes no mention of him in either of the four epistles which in that year he wrote from Rome. Lastly, he was not in that city in 66, since it must not be supposed that he would have deserted his brother Paul, when all men, he writes, forsook him at his first answer before the Emperor. Therefore, St. Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the Pope certainly has not succeeded him. Therefore, if the Romish Church builds on that foundation, it builds in the air. Stranger. What then do you leave to that Church, since you refuse to acknowledge its divine character, its Head, and even its foundation? Disciple. As the Bible and History refuse to acknowledge these, can I do otherwise? Stranger. What Church then do you admit to be the Church of God? Disciple.-That only which the Bible recognises as such. Stranger.--What is that privileged Church? Disciple. The Bible renders glory to the Grace of God. That Church then, which submits to this Grace of God, is certainly the Church of God. Stranger.-But how may it be known that it submits? Disciple.-As it may be known whether children are docile, or a people obey the laws: they profess their submission or obedience, and then by their conduct evince the sincerity of their profession.-The Church then which confesses Salvation by Grace, and then observes the laws of Grace, such a Church is certainly the Church of God. It is there that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who takes of the things of God, and gives them to the Church, and who glorifying Jesus, speaks to the Churches, that he who hath an ear may hear what the Spirit saith. (John xvi. 14; Rev. ii. 7.) There the Holy Spirit governs; not, as the Bible says, like an earthquake, a whirlwind, or a devouring fire, but as a still small voice. (1 Kings xix. 11, 12.) There also, far from bulls, rescripts, sentences of excommunication, or the tortures and funeral piles of an Inquisition, forcing and constraining obedience, the anointing of the Holy One teaches, and the gentle and deep influence of Grace accomplishes in the heart, the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (1 John ii. 27; Rom. xii. 2.) There, the obedience of the Church is true and genuine; and therefore it is that the Worship of such a Church ever responds to the love of God. Stranger. Is the worship of this Church also agreeably to the Grace of God only? Disciple. To that alone; and this is why I blame and reject that of the Church of Rome;--because the Holy Spirit is shut out of it. he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." There must be a melting of the gold before it can be separated from the ore; there must be a rending of the root before the tree can be taken from the wilderness and transplanted into the garden of the Lord. And so it is with (End of the Controversy on THE CHURCH.) Believers. There must be a melting of the PURGATORY. (Concluded from page 85.) THE doctrine of purgatory is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the atonement as set forth in scripture. In the extract already quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it was stated that in the fire of purgatory the souls of the pious make expiation for their sin. There are two things to be noticed in them: 1st, They assert directly that man's sufferings can make expiation for his sin, and 2nd, they imply that the death of our Lord was not a complete expiation for our sin; let us examine each part separately. 1. First then we have a direct assertion that by enduring pain the believer makes expiation for his soul, that is, that our temporary sufferings satisfy God's broken law. If this be true, what occasion was there for the blood of Jesus? Why the stupendous mystery of man's redemption? Why the agony in the garden? Why the burden of the cross? Why the hiding of God's countenance? Why the enduring of the curse in our stead? Such a work was surely needless, a mere mistake on the part of Jesus. The atonement is become a fable, if man's passing pain can make expiation for his sin. But again, if pain is expiation, how is it that hell fire burns for ever; was ever suffering so intense as that? Was there ever such a scene of woe and misery, of hatefulness and hopelessness as that? But does it make expiation for the sinner's sin? Does it blot out the curse? Does the fire burn out its fuel? "It is the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched." Yea, verily, if the curse of one single sin could be burned out by ten thousand centuries of pain, hell would be no hell, for there would be a faint gleam of far distant hope, shining even upon the miseries of the damned. There is no expiation then in pain. Believers are chastened, but chastening is not atonement. It is God's gentle discipline by which he prepares his jewels for his crown, and just as the finest gold is wrought most carefully, so the most precious of God's children are often chastened most heavily, "For whom the Lord loveth heart, a humbling of the earthly will, a weaning of soul, that they may cleave to Christ alone. And this is the purpose for which we are chastened. He does it "for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness." Affliction has the same effect that Nebuchadnezzar's furnace had on the three children in captivity. It could not touch their persons, but it burnt the bands that bound them, and enabled them to walk more freely with their Lord. But expiation, tiation for our sins," and if suffering in that is Christ's work. "He is the propiman could expiate for sin in man, then the suffering of Christ were a waste of blood, a waste of agony, a waste of life, and a waste of love. 2. And this leads us to our second remark, that the doctrine of expiation through purgatory's fire implies an incompleteness in the atonement of our blessed Lord. If expiation be still needful, then in his atonement there must be something wanting. Nor is this the mere conclusion of a bigotted Protestant, it is the bold assertion of the Church of Rome herself. Listen to her canon. feel utterly at a loss in attempting to I never could understand how the Church of Rome reconciles this decree with its doctrine of ex treme unction. The Council of Trent decrees, Sess. 14, Extreme Unction, Chap 2 :-The matter of the Sacrament is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose unction blots out all such offences and remains of sins remain for expiation in purgatory? What sin as still require expiation. If this be true, what can be the use of masses for the dead? Surely the priests of the Church of Rome cannot believe their short of robbery to receive fees for extricating own decree, for if they did, it would be nothing souls from purgatory. They are already free through extreme unction. satisfy the law, and can any portion of the * How miserable is the confidence of a poor No! we will not for a moment admit the thought of any other expiation than that wrought out for us by the Lamb of God. And as for our dear departed brethren, nothing that Rome can say shall ever rob us of our delightful hope. They have felt no pain since the day we parted; their sainted spirits have been basking in the sunshine of the countenance of God. I myself have parted with a mother; such a mother, that I often wonder if the world can ever more behold her equal; so strong in faith, so ardent in her thirsting after God, so pure in spirit, so sensitive to sin, so beaming in her holy loveliness, that you might almost believe you saw the Father's name written legibly by the Holy Ghost upon her forehead. To this day do I hear the tones of her dying voice when in answer to my questions respecting her soul's peace, she replied, I can reverently say with the deepest humility, "Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee." And I would rather have this arm torn from its socket, I would rather be scorched and scathed in Moloch's fire, than I would abandon my firm and fixed persuasion that such love has never been interrupted, that her Redeeming Lord has never left her for a moment; my perfect persuasion that while we were weeping round the bed of death, she was taking her place amongst the company of palm-bearers, and is now standing before the throne, having washed her robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. So also for ourselves; for we too must die, our day is hastening on, our time drawing to its close. A few short years, and multitudes amongst us must change their faith for sight, forsake the world of flesh for the world of spirits; a few short rapid years, and every one, both you and I, shall find ourselves in heaven or hell. But let us fear nothing; only let us be found in Christ, justified through his blood, with our names written in his book of life, and the Father's name engraven by the Holy Ghost on our forehead, and then neither death or In Christ hell can ever prevail to hurt us. we are safe, washed in his blood we are completely pardoned, clad in his righteousness we are completely justified, and kept reason than my malice and wickedness. Many of them are dead, for which I am heartily sorry. As "The ne for the times I have consecrated without intention, we must leave it to God's almighty mercy, for the wrong done by it to the souls of my parishioners and those in purgatory, cannot be helped." Oh that we could persuade our poor Romon Catholic brethren to trust at once to the great High Priest, who blotteth out all sin by his own most precious blood. |