66

66

by their traditions, corrupted their countrymen; and, accordingly, our Lord addresses them as follows:- Why do ye transgress the commandments of God by your tradition ?" 'Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”—Matt. xiii. 3, 6, 9. These are words to which your clergy would do well to take heed.*

It is true that we are exhorted to hold fast traditions ;" but from 2 Thess. ii. 15, we learn that these were written, as well as spoken; so that what was delivered orally to one Church was conveyed in letters to others, and thus the Scriptures contain the whole Word of God.

The Jews, as well as the ancient heathens, pretended to certain mystical knowledge, unattainable by the profane and uninitiated. On account of these pretensions, their persons were held in admiration; this was what they sought, and they had their reward. The ambition of the Christian Fathers soon availed itself of so powerful an auxiliary. They also "gave out," with great industry and feigned humility, that they had secret intercourse with God, and received from him revelations of great importance, which were to be communicated only to a chosen few. The distinction conferred by these assumed privileges was very flattering to spiritual pride, the most powerful, blinding, and indurating of all vices. When, in pro

cess of time, the Bishop of Rome succeeded, because of his residence in the metropolis of the empire, in establishing his supremacy, these privileges were gradually regarded as resting in that See, which was esteemed the centre of spiritual authority in the Western Church. This is the origin of what has been called apostolic tradition. All arch impostors, from Numa to Mahomet, had availed themselves of this artifice in order to dupe their followers. And the despots of Rome were too well versed in the arts of deception to neglect such a plan for building up their unhallowed power. The " mystery of iniquity" had long been working before the policy of the Papal court reduced it into a system. From this source has emanated, like pestilential vapour, all the erroneous doctrine that has disgraced the Christian name. Hence have sprung all those figments that have elevated the clergy into demi-gods, and degraded the people into slaves.

These traditions are decreed to be of equal authority with the written Word. But they are nowhere to be found. Suppose you are anxious to bow to their authority, how are you to ascertain what they direct? From the priest? No; he is fallible and may deceive you. From the Pope? No; for he is not accessible to all; and, according to Bossuet's Exposition, lately recommended by Dr. Murray, he only enjoys a primacy in the Church, and is also fallible. From the Notes appended to the Bible? No; for, according to Dr. Doyle, these "carry no weight." From the creed of Pope Pius, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent? No; for these were compiled since the Council closed its deliberations; and though they have been received as authentic summaries of the Papal faith, yet

*The Jews were accustomed to say, "The words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty." Such, also, is the sentiment inculcated by the Church of Rome.

RULE OF FAITH.-PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

127

they are mere modern compilations, unknown in the Church for fifteen hundred years, and containing many dogmas, of which we have no trace in Scripture, or in the Apostles' creed, or the Nicene or Athanasian creed. Surely we cannot believe that these traditionary sparks would have floated unextinguished, through the gloom of fifteen centuries, till collected into a focus by Pius IV. Besides, granting this creed to be infallibly true in Latin, how do you know that it has been faithfully translated, or that you perfectly understand it? Place twelve Roman Catholics in different apartments, and, after due time allowed for deliberation, call on each for his explanation of the Creed of Pius, and I will venture to assert that no two of them will agree. Where, then, is the living, speaking, infallible tribunal? Where shall the people of Ireland find it? Where is the boasted standard, in accordance with which we must interpret every passage of the Word of God? Let it be produced. My friend, there is no such thing.

it;

You hand me the creed of Pius. But, before I swallow it, you must answer these questions:-How do you know that this is correctly translated, or correctly printed? How do you know that the Latin is genuine? May there not be omissions or interpolations? But, if genuine, who composed it? The Pope, a fallible man. When? In the sixteenth century, fifteen hundred years too late. By what authority?" His own, founded on Scripture." How do you know it is founded on Scripture? "By examining certain passages that establish it."* Yes; according to your private judgment. Well! I see we have come back to the main point again. I will now grant you the inspiration of the Bible, though I might call on you to prove and we shall see whether your opinion of these passages is sound, and, therefore, a fit foundation to build an infallible Church upon. Mind, you cannot now avail yourself of notes, because they have no authority; nor can you trust your own translation, because it gives no certain sense to difficult passages. I speak this advisedly, and here is my authority :-"Because this speech is subject to divers senses (could not the infallible authority tell which was the right one?) we keep the words of our text, lest by turning it into any English phrase, we might straighten the Holy Ghost's intention to some certain sense, either notintended, or not only intended; and so take away the choice and indifferencie from the reader, whereof (in Holy Scripture specially) all translators must beware."-Note on John ii. 4, Rheims Edition, 1582.

What! is it possible that the Roman Catholic reader has a choice and indifferency as to the meaning he is to attribute to the Word of God! I thought he should interpret every passage according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers! If there be such a thing, why did not the Annotators refer to it here? Alas! they had no such thing to refer to, and they tell you candidly they do not understand the passage, and that they leave it to your "choice and indifferencie," to take what meaning you please out of it. O infallible tribunal, where art thou? Why not come to the aid

*See a masterly analysis of the Rule of Faith in Dr. Urwick's most valuable Centenary Sermons, p. 51.

of the Rhemish Doctors in their sore perplexity, to lighten their darkness, and obviate the necessity of making this humiliating confession?

Well, my friend, if, in the use of private judgment, you may exercise your choice on difficult passages, you may surely exercise it on those which are plain. Let us then refer to Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Now, suppose I grant that these words confer a supremacy on Peter, what is that to the Bishop of Rome? There is no proof from Scripture, and very doubtful evidence from history, that Peter was Bishop at Rome.* But if he were, the apostles had no successors, as such. We challenge proof on this point. Besides, the presence and teaching of Peter did not keep the Church at Antioch from falling; the Churches of Asia, planted by Paul, and even the mother Church at Jerusalem, have long since perished. The Church of Christ has moved from place to place through the earth, like the pillar of fire in the wilderness; when persecuted in one city, fleeing to another; and, therefore, any promise of infallibility to that Church cannot be pleaded in favour of any particular community. Can you produce any promise of infallibility to the Church of Rome? Not one in the whole Bible! But we can produce a threat of destruction. The Church is exhorted—Rom. xi. 20-22-not to be “highminded, but fear," lest she should "be cut off." She has been high-minded with a vengeance! We believe the curse has been upon her for ages, and that she is no longer a branch of the olive tree. "Boast not against the branches," says the Apostle, "but if thou boast thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." She never was, therefore, the mother of all Churches. The branch could not bear the root.

But we deny the supremacy or infallibility of Peter. I return to Matt. xvi. 18. I have not room for a lengthened exposition of this passage. But we may bring the matter to a short issue. These words cannot be so understood as to contradict other texts that are quite plain. For instance, in Matt. xx. 25-28, our Lord expressly borbids all assumption of superiority on the part of any of the apostles. In Eph. ii. 20, the Church is said to be built on the foundation of "the apostles and prophets,"† no pre-eminence being assigned to Peter above the others. Peter was sent by the Apostles to Antioch-Acts viii. 14—and, doubtless, the greater is not sent by the less. Paul says he was not a whit behind him; and on one occasion he withstood him to the face-2 Cor. xi, 5, and Gal. ii. 11. Jesus conferred on all the

*The authorities appealed to on this subject are Irenæus and Eusebius, who assert that Peter came to Rome as bishop, in the second year of Claudius; but two years after this, we find Peter in prison at Jerusalem-Acts xii. 3; and, seven years after, he was present at the council there-Acts xv. 6. He could not have been at Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to that city, A.D. 57, nor when he was led a prisoner there, A.D. 60. See Acts xxviii. 17, &c. and Romans xvi. Could the name of Peter the Bishop have been omitted in these salutations, had he been really there? Surely not! We need not deny that this apostle came to Rome towards the close of his life; but if it was so, it was not to erect a Papal throne, but to assume the crown of martyrdom.

↑ See page 239.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

129

As to the rock, it is "Jesus," says he,

apostles, without any distinction, the power of the keys-John xx. 22, 23— Receive ye the holy Ghost: whosoever's sins ye remit, they are remitted them," &c. This passage explains I will give unto thee the keys," &c. This gift of the keys is the privilege of all faithful pastors, and, without a figure, means simply authority (of which keys were anciently the emblem) to preach the Gospel, which is a proclamation of pardon to the penitent, and to administer discipline in the Church.* sufficient to quote the explanation of St. Augustine. "said not thou art the Rock, but thou art Peter." whom Simon confessed. This interpretation, and one substantially the same, or at least equally at variance with the sense ascribed to the passage by the modern Church of Rome, have been supported, according to the Roman Catholic authors, Du Pin and Calmet, by fifteen Popes, thirteen Roman saints, thirty-seven Fathers and Doctors, and four Councils, besides many modern Roman Catholic writers.†

The Rock was Christ,

Here, then, is a powerful array of authorities against the modern Roman Catholic interpretation, which is urged with such confidence by every superficial polemic. Now, dear friend, you know that you are pledged by the creed of Pope Pius, article 2, never to interpret Scripture "otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." You perceive that a vast number of Popes and Fathers are on my side of this question. If you maintain, from this passage, that Peter is the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, you trample on the creed of your Church, for on that interpretation the Fathers are NOT unanimous. But if you agree with me that Christ, or faith in Christ, is the foundation on which the Church is built, then, of course, you give up the point, and demonstrate that the Church of Rome is, even on her own principles, incapable of defence-her boasted infallibility resting on passages of Scripture whose inspiration and exposition must be settled by private judgment, without her aid—passages which cannot be explained in her favour without violating her own imperatively-enforced principle of interpretation!

That this plain refutation of the principal tenets of your Church may prove the means of your emancipation from its power, is the earnest prayer of

Your faithful Friend.

See pp. 185-190.

Canisius iv.

This interpretation is sanctioned by the General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Basil, and Trent-Labbeus viii. 770-1268, and x. 529, and xvii. 692, 821, and xx. 332. 469. Among the authorities referred to in the text, I may mention, Popes-Celestin, Innocent Pius, Felix, Gregory, John, Urban. Saints-Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril, Basil, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine.

L

130

REGENERATION.-BAPTISM.-AN UNREGENERATE CONVERT.

LETTER XIX.

MY DEAR FRIEND,-The preceding summary of the arguments against the Church of Rome will give you some idea of the reasons that induced me to leave that communion. I now return to my religious experience. I am free to confess that, for nearly twelve months after my recantation, I was but a nominal Protestant—by which I mean that, though fully convinced of the sound and Scriptural character of the Reformed faith, I was not converted to God. This language, I am aware, is scarcely intelligible to a Roman Catholic. You think that Christians are regenerated or born again in baptism. You fancy that this rite removes both the guilt and defilement of original sin, and that, after that event, the individual is in a situation to work out his own salvation, and earn for himself eternal redemption.

We do not believe that the baptismal ceremony regenerates the soul. In Apostolic times it was administered only when faith in Christ had been professed, and when, by consequence, the soul had been justified and born again, for this change always accompanies saving faith. What, then, is the use of baptism as administered to infants?

It is intended to represent their being "born in sin, and the children of wrath," and to teach the necessity of their souls being washed in the blood of Jesus, "the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness;" and it is also a rite of initiation, by which Christian parents dedicate their children to Christ, as disciples in the school of the Gospel. If their being sprinkled with water implied that they were born of the Spirit, would there not be some indications of this change in the dispositions and conduct of children. But, alas! universal experience testifies that, notwithstanding the supposed grace of baptism and confirmation, they remain so powerfully influenced by the principles of depravity, by ignorance of God and aversion to his will, that the most vigilant parental oversight is too frequently incapable of preventing the outbreaking of evil. Pride, vanity, falsehood, obstinacy, impurity, selfishness in a thousand forms, mark the character of the baptised youth of our land, with few exceptions. By a most mischievous euphemism, these things are indulgently denominated the harmless frailties of our nature; but this apologetic phraseology betrays a grievous insensibility to the evil of sin, as an offence against the majesty of God.

Those who read their Bibles dare not gloze over their transgressions by language so fatally delusive. They know that "he that believeth not (though he were baptised) shall be damned"-Mark xvi. 16. Hence, the ministers of the Gospel preach to nominal Christians as they would preach to heathens -that they must be born again. Now, it is quite possible for a man to discard your system, and receive the whole theory of Protestantism, honestly and firmly persuaded of its truth, without believing "with the heart unto