Papers on Romanism
Charles Stanley
Table of Contents
Plain Words to Ritualists on Their Way to Rome No. 1
The Cambridge Chamber of Darkness
“And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:5-16).
Thus did the ancients of Israel do in the dark. And thus speaks the word of God of their wicked abominations, both of the image of jealousy, and of their pictures portrayed on the wall.
I would now ask you to go with me, not to Jerusalem, but to Cambridge, one of the great seats of learning in England.
One word of explanation. I had been with a friend to visit a sick person. The mother of this invalid had a room in the court or yard, which she desired to let to my friend. He asked me to look at it with him.
Now I want you to go in with me, and I will help you to look at it for yourself. At least I will describe exactly what I saw. We will follow the owner of this room. It is dark: she takes a candle in her hand up the dark passage. She has the keys; but before we go in, I must tell you, so as to prepare you a little, that this room in the dark passage is let at present to some members of the University; and the owner is very wishful for them to give it up.
After some difficulty the door in the wall is opened. We have only one candle. Dear me, how dim and strange this place looks! What can that be opposite the entrance? Why look, it is actually a large image of a dead Christ lying down! And that? an image of a woman, leaning or weeping over the awful-looking dead body of Christ! And that? what can that large triangle of wood be, with candles stuck on it, burnt nearly down to the sockets? I should have been puzzled if I had not seen this same purgatorial triangle in the temples of idolatry on the continent. There you may see a distressed widow or orphan come and buy a candle, place it on the triangle, and then kneel before some image in prayer for a supposed soul in purgatory while the candle burns. And this is done by millions in what is called Christendom!
Do you see that penitential chair before the awful image? Just look at those sticks fastened to the back of the chair, to support, I suppose, the hands uplifted in idol worship! and did you ever see such horrid-looking cloaks, black, and ugly? Well, you would almost think, the order of Beelzebub must worship here. Hush! some of the most gentlemanly members of the University meet here. You notice that large cross behind the prostrate body? And these articles, what are they? Incense vessels, and other utensils of idolatry.
Now step through this hole in the wall, and see other abominations. A strange feeling creeps over you. The light is very dim. You see that image of an angel, meekly asking you to dip your finger in the holy water; no, by the way, it is all dried up. Now look round. Yes, that is the image of the Virgin Mary queen of heaven; and the little child. And there the altar with its great flaring cross; there the desk; here lie vestments and books. We will examine those books shortly. But this place looks so dismal; where are the windows? Oh, this is like the old worship of Tammuz! The dark chambers of idolatry. Now look, those windows are carefully boarded up. Not a ray of God’s light must enter this chamber of spiritual abominations. What! not a chink between the boards? The members of the Confraternity have carefully, most carefully, papered over those boards; and where the light of day should be, there stands their altar. Oh England! England! these be the men, preparing to be thy parish antichrists!
The books! I said above, we will examine these books. As surely as God has bid me sound this alarm, those books will come into my hands, though humanly speaking, it seems impossible, as they are only sold to the Confraternity. But one of them came into my hands a few days ago—I will tell you how.
Last Lord’s day evening I felt as it were compelled to preach from two words: “The night.” The verse reads, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Rom. 13:12). Truly God moves in a mysterious way. There was a stranger in the audience from a distance, a member of this very Confraternity; but I knew it not. I was led to inquire why the Holy Spirit speaks of the period of Christianity as “the night.” And I was directed in the scriptures in a remarkable way.
In Paul’s farewell address, he distinctly foretold that after his departing grievous wolves should enter in amongst them; and even as to themselves things should come to a bad state. But he does not give the slightest hint of any succession of men to whom he could commend the believers. He commends “them to God, and the word of his grace.” (See Acts 20:28-31.)
No, in the very earliest epistles, the night was advancing. He tells the Thessalonians, that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work,” and goes on, until the days of the wicked one who “shall be destroyed by the brightness of the coming” of Christ (2 Thess. 2:5-11). The apostle John said, “Even now are there many antichrists” (1 John 2:18). And read the description that Jude gives of the “certain men that had crept in unawares.” Is it not remarkable that during those days of apostasy, if God had intended to give a succession of priests, He should not, in at least one instance, have directed the believer to them? Peter devotes a whole chapter to these false teachers, but not a syllable about trusting his successors (2 Peter 2).
Paul shows them to be false apostles, ministers of Satan (2 Cor. 11:13-15). And the Spirit describes expressly the Roman Catholic marks of the latter times; denouncing them as the doctrines of devils. “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1-3) And then, what a description of the condition of these very last days in 2 Tim. 3! And yet not one word either to trust the priest, or the church; no, God Himself and His holy word. “The night”; what a night this has been! but the morning breaketh.
There are two very striking numbers, often used in scripture: FOUR and SEVEN. The Lord has used each of these to divide the night. “Watch ye therefore; for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh; at even or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning” (Mark 13:34).
1. The even. We see the church, as an outward testimony, fails even before the end of apostolic times. God had His own, and knew them; but the church, as a light in the world, failed immediately, as all had done before it.
2. The midnight darkness of the papal ages.
3. The awakening of the Reformation.
4. The morning. The present moment; so near the coming of our blessed Lord.
Now if you turn to Rev. 2; 3, the Lord divides “night” (the prophetic history of Christendom and His judgment of it) into seven successive periods, the last four running on together to the end.
1. EPHESUS. Decline of first love.
2. SMYRNA. Persecution, and the introduction of Ritualism, and a priesthood; the blasphemy of saying they are Jews; that is, those who take the place of being so-called priests, &c., and are not.
3. PERGAMOS. Satan’s old seat of Baal worship, amalgamation of that world-worship with the professing church. It gets darker.
4. THYATIRA. Dark long years of Jezebel—Rome.
5. SARDIS. Results of the Reformation. Few names.
6. PHILADELPHIA. Near the morning, souls gathered outside, to the person of Christ, and Ritualism again to contend with; those who take the place of so-called priests, and are not.
7. LAODICEA. The sad final state and rejection of Christendom. After the close of this judgment of the seven stages of “the night.” The church is no more seen on earth, but in heaven until she comes with the Lord (Rev. 19).
Such is a brief outline of the scriptures that were brought before us on Lord’s day evening last.
On the Monday morning this stranger called upon me and owned the Lord had used the word in power to her soul. She wished to know however, if any one had informed me about her case. I assured her that I knew not a word. She then told me that she was a member of the Holy Confraternity; and that her eyes had been completely opened; and she felt she must give it all up utterly. She then took her little book out of her pocket, and gave it to me—a copy of one of the books used in the Cambridge chamber of darkness—the one from which I had taken extracts.
Before we look at this book, I would relate that this lady informed me, that there are thousands of members of this Confraternity throughout England. She named Ritualistic clergymen of this neighborhood, as members.
The book is called “THE MANUAL of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Sixth ed.” The chief professed object of this Confraternity is “The honor due to the person of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood” (page 7). Its form of government is very similar to, if not the same as, the order of the Jesuits—a Superior General, and a council, also Superiors of various wards, in short, a most perfect organization. The Superior General must be a bishop or a priest. The greatest care is to be observed in admitting a member. Each is to be fully instructed, name and full address kept, &c.
The candidate is admitted kneeling, and the priest standing. Then follow prayers, on the idolatrous principle that the bread and the wine are turned into God. A medal of membership is given.
Nothing in Rome can possibly exceed the idolatry of the prayers that follow. “O God, who dost wonderfully refresh Thy Church by Thy precious Body and Blood;” and again, “O my beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I firmly believe, because Thou hast said, “This is my Body; this is my Blood,” that in this blessed sacrament Thou art truly present; THY DIVINITY and Thy humanity, with all the treasures of Thy merits and Thy grace; that Thou art Thyself mystically offered for us in this Holy Oblation.” Again, “I ADORE Thee, O Lord my God, whom I now behold veiled beneath these earthly forms; prostrate I adore Thy Majesty. Jesus, our wonderful God, who vouchsafest to be present upon the altar when the priest pronounces the words of consecration; have mercy upon us.” Prayer after prayer of this kind follows. In fact, every prayer and act of devotion and adoration is to “our Lord present in the Holy Eucharist.” The Eucharist is regarded as the victim offered on the altar: “O sacred victim, offered in satisfaction for the sins of the world.” It is spoken of as the “pure offering,” “the awful sacrifice,” and “the victim consumed on the altar.”
The lady referred to above informed me that this book was commonly used by all the members of this Confraternity in the churches of England during what they call “celebration.” Here then is a vast confederation of idolaters. Thousands and thousands are worshiping the bread and wine as God, in the Church of England; and are either Romanists at heart, or fast becoming so. The process is simple but sure. They are told every fresh step is getting a little higher; but every step is a little nearer Rome. Thus the impression becomes universal, that Rome is right and they are wrong; and all is wrong but Rome. It is high time, however, to examine all this by the word of God; not by the fathers of even the second and third century. For as we have seen, “the night” of darkness had set in even by the close of apostolic times, so that what is called church history is the history of that darkness and wickedness, that began long before the close of the first, century of this era.
Let us have a little inquiry then, with the thousands of these priest-associates. And to make the matter as simple as possible, let us introduce an inquirer into the doctrines and membership of this Confraternity; who, mark, must be a bishop, priest, deacon, brother or sister of a religious community, or communicant of the English Church (page 10). And further we will suppose this inquirer to be an exercised soul, who believes the word of God. Let these priests answer these questions and scriptures in the presence of God if they can.
Inquirer. I have read in God’s word, that I am not to make any graven images, or to bow down to them; and in the prophets, I am told that the worship of idols is an abomination. If I join the Confraternity, shall I have to disregard all these scriptures? Ritualism tells me to bow down to the queen of heaven, or to an image of a dead Christ, or the cross, or to consecrated bread; but is not this to disregard what God says?
I have read these precious words of Jesus: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). As a lost sinner, I have been brought to Jesus in the confession of my sins to Him; and He has spoken to my soul in these words. And oh, the joy it has given to my soul, to know that I have, even now, everlasting life; and to think (to say nothing of purgatory), that I shall not come into judgment! Dead with Jesus, risen with Him. I shall not come into judgment, but I am passed from death unto life. Oh, the deep joy this gives! It so fills my heart with love to Jesus: shall I have to give up these precious words of Jesus, and joy, and light and everlasting life, all mine now? Does not Ritualism forbid me to enjoy such certainty from those words of Jesus? Must we not humbly pray that “we may all at length attain by a holy and peaceful death to the joy, and light of everlasting life?” (Page 40). I have read, and through grace believed, that the Lord Jesus, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; and also “by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10). And I read distinctly that this is in direct contrast with the other order of continued and repeated sacrifices, that never can take away sins. These are the very words; “And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” Now this is a most serious question, and I do trust you will give me a clear answer. Am I still to receive with joy the testimony of God’s inspired word to the everlasting efficacy of this one offering of Christ; that all believers who are sanctified by this offering are forever perfected; and that there need be, there can be, no repetition of this offering; that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God in proof that this infinite work is accomplished?
This may be thought to be the most dreadful heresy to believe what God the Holy Ghost says about this “perfected forever,” by the one offering of Christ once—never to be repeated. If this be true, where is the use of the priest-associate? Where the use of your offering the awful sacrifice of the altar, standing continually offering those sacrifices, that never can take away sins? Must we reject what Christ has done, and what God says about it? And must we most humbly, and devoutly, believe in your continued, and ever repeated offering of the victim on the altar that never can take away sins? Why, if Jesus Christ be the eternal Son, and if His blood cleanseth from all sin, and thus perfects the conscience forever, what need can there be for purgatory? for holy water? for all the intercessors including even the blessed Mary as queen of heaven? But do not the inspired scriptures plainly declare this everlasting efficacy of the one offering of Christ? And does not God say, “And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” Oh, may I not believe God, and so enter into rest? Rest of soul to the weary is so sweet. Now does not the scripture say all this?
I cannot doubt that God says all this; am I not to read what God says? Or am I to get a little higher, and a little higher, that is, a little nearer holy church, whose priests a little while ago would have incited and commanded the civil power to drag to the stake the Christian who dared to read and believe what God says in His word? If I turn from the word of God to your teaching, I see in the “Manual” that, so far from the believer being forever perfected by the one offering of Christ, even after death he needs your intercessions for his soul. (See page 77.)
Remember you board up the windows, and, papering them over, carefully exclude God’s light. There in the darkness, you place your altar, with your victim, and there you stand, offering your offerings which can never take away sins. One ray of gospel light would expose the darkness and idolatry. Do you think you could bow and swing and adore the bread and wine, and offer it a “sacrifice for sins,” if you believed God that the ONE offering of the body of Christ (ONCE offered) forever perfects? Impossible! Right well do you know, or ought to know, that, in the beginning when Christians believed God, there was no need of so-called priests or altar, or offering the victim. They met as disciples together to break bread in remembrance of His death, rejoicing in the eternal redemption they had through the blood of Christ. All that is quite different from what you do. They worshiped in the light; if I join you, must I worship in the dark?
I scarcely thought I should have to give up so much of Christianity, to become a holy confederate.
I read in God’s word of having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus. I also read, how before Jesus died the one sacrifice for sins, “that the Holy Ghost this signified that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest” (Heb. 9:8). That is, the Jew was shut out of the presence of God: the veil shut him out. When Jesus died, the veil was rent from top to bottom. And the blood of Jesus gives the Christian boldness to enter.
The beautiful parable of the prodigal just illustrates what I mean. It shows man once a miserable sinner, needing mercy, coming in repentance and confession straight to the Father. Curious, there is no priest here! Then the Father’s joy in receiving and clothing him, and we find him where the Jew could never come, in the Father’s presence. And oh, the joy of that Father! In short, the proper place of the Jew, before the death of Jesus, was to stand afar off, crying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” The proper place of the Christian now that Jesus has died, and risen again, is in the full joy of the Father’s presence: “Giving thanks unto the Father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his own Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12). There is a great difference, is there not? The Jew, miserable, crying for mercy. The Christian happy, so happy! rejoicing, and giving thanks. The one afar off, the other inside; the one crying for forgiveness; the other giving thanks for sins forgiven. If I join the Confraternity, shall I take the place of the miserable Jew; or that of the happy Christian? Oh, must I give up all this blessed certainty? Think of it! meetness (fitness) for the inheritance of the saints in light. Which am I to be, Jew or Christian?
If I join the Confraternity, what am I to do with the scriptures, and with what God says? If I turn again to this “Manual,” there it is as plain as plain can be, that I must give up all this bright Christianity. I must know nothing of the joy of sins forgiven, or meetness for heaven, or having redemption. I must take the place of a miserable Jew. (See pages 18, 29, 41-60.) But surely this is enough to convince anyone that the proper place of a member of the Holy Confraternity is to stand Jew-like, at a distance, crying for mercy. In your vain repetitions, do you not use everything in heaven and on earth to move God to have mercy upon you? Only, I observe, your God is the bread and wine, as you say, “O sacred victim, consumed on the altar by us and for us, Have mercy upon us?” You seem to know nothing of the risen person of Christ, at the right hand of God, having finished the work of our redemption. The only God you know is bread and wine, made God by you in consecration. Nothing could be farther from your religion, than the place the prodigal enjoyed in the Father’s presence. How could he repeat page after page, asking for mercy, when the Father had received him with joy? Far better does it suit the unbelieving heart to keep crying for mercy—to say with the Jew before Christ died, “Forgive us our sins,” than to say with the believer now; “God hath for Christ’s sake forgiven our sins.”
Excuse me a little: I had no idea that I should have to give up so much, in reality to sink so low, in order to belong to “high church.” I have a few more questions. You often quote those words of the Lord Jesus, as though they referred to the sacrament, “Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life.” Now Jesus explains these words. He says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life” (John 6:54-63). This explanation makes the meaning of the Lord very clear. It was not enough to receive Him as the bread from heaven, the living Messiah, but the word of God as to the shedding of His blood also, must be received. The actual accomplished work of His death must be received in the soul, through the spirit. Now where this is done, that soul has eternal life. May I ask, do you believe the Lord that His WORDS are spirit and they are life, and those who thus receive Him have eternal life? as He says. He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life. Do you believe Him? Do you know that you have eternal life?
It is plain from your teaching in the “Manual” that you do not believe that these words are to be thus understood spiritually, but literally. That in your ever repeated sacrifices of the altar, you literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood; yes, you eat your God, body, soul, and divinity. Do you not teach this over and over again in “the Manual?” Jesus says, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood HATH ETERNAL LIFE.” Now, suppose that you do believe that this eating is literal, and that it refers to the sacrament, then in your way even, do you believe that all who take holy communion have eternal life?
Further, do you not teach in the “Manual,” by your prayers at least, that you must pass through a holy death to get everlasting life? This is the idea of holy church. The, or rather your, sacrifices on your altars can never take away sins or give eternal life. Do they not really hide the true and only sacrifice of the Lord Jesus? When it suits your purpose, you can quote isolated scripture. This one serves you well, “This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me,” and “This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19, 20).
Is this enough to warrant you in taking a loaf or wafer, or wine, and trying to believe that it is, or any of them, Jesus Christ, very God?
You say, mark those words, “This is my body.” Let me understand what you mean. Suppose I am passing through a conservatory, and a number of people are bowing in prayer and adoration to a vine. The head gardener declares it is Jesus Christ, body, soul, humanity, and divinity. He declares that these people are the Holy Confraternity of the blessed body and blood of Christ in this vine; no more, that he and other head gardeners have power to turn vines into God. And they have a secret society to worship this vine. And suppose they used the very prayers of “the Manual” addressed to this vine as God. I ask the head gardener for his authority for this worship. And he replies, mark those words, “I am the true vine” (John 15). I must inquire and examine. Tell me, would not all this, Manual and all, be simply blasphemy against God? And I want you to show me why “this is my body” means Himself literally, body, soul, and divinity, any more than “I am the vine” means literally that a vine may thus be worshiped.
Or take another illustration. I am passing, say through a lunatic asylum. I am shown into a room. The poor lunatics are bowing and swinging, dressed in the most odd old clothes. They have a little manual. Beautiful words of adoration, and page after page of prayers, cries for mercy. But what are they praying to? Just see. An old door that the head lunatic has brought in and reared up against that wall. He declares it is God. Sternly does he rebuke all who neglect to worship the old deal door. He maintains that he and other head lunatics have power to turn old doors continually into God. I ask the poor lunatic for his authority. He says, Mark those words, “I am the door.” Another company of countrymen might worship an old shepherd, for Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Where is the difference in each of these cases? The priest in the dark hole of Cambridge takes a loaf; the gardener a vine, the lunatic a door, the countryman a shepherd. Now is there the least thought in God’s holy word that any one of these should be blasphemously worshiped? Is there a trace that the apostles worshiped the bread and wine as God? Did Paul do so, or so understand it? “This do in remembrance of Me”; he understood and states by inspiration, to be simply this: “For as often as ye [the assembly, not so-called priests] eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death until He come.” Evidently this is what the scriptures teach, and what all Christians understood and did then. Is it not still bread when eaten in remembrance of Jesus and showing forth His death?
Do you take no notice of the scriptures, or what the early Church did? The church then was as different as possible from high church now. Since then, you priests have had it very much your own way. Why, there was no separate priest then; and no altar; and no flowers (it would be like Cain bringing them with his fruits); and no gorgeous temples then; and no worship of the Virgin as queen of heaven; and no Ritualism then; except as your early friends tried to bring it in. Only think that Paul condemned the first attempt to bring in the feasts of the church, as going back to beggarly elements. What a church should we have in England, if we had only the church as God set it up in the beginning! There would be nothing but the worship of God in spirit and in truth.
Take up the New Testament and search it through; you would soon see it would never do to compare the Anglican church, as you want to have it, with the church you have in the word of God. You would find no priest over a parish, no such thought as children made members of Christ by baptism, no altar, no repeated sacrifices.
Really this perplexes me. If it will not do to go to the scriptures or to the church as set up of God, then where has the religion of holy mother church come from? Take a few particulars; for instance, the feasts of the church—this holy day and that holy day. I certainly do remember that our blessed Lord did not institute one holy day, except as His resurrection marked out the Lord’s day, the first day of the week. Neither did the apostles observe a single holy day or festival of the church. Some did cling to Judaism with its beggarly shadows; but nowhere does the Holy Ghost in the Epistles teach the observing of days, and months, and times, and years. No, he severely condemns the attempt of the Galatian deceivers to introduce them (Gal. 4:9, 10). Then whence did you get them? Was it not partly from Judaism, but chiefly from paganism? The pagans sacrificed to demons (1 Cor. 11). Now the doctrine of Balaam was to mingle the old pagan worship with the worship of Christians. Swarms of pagans were nominally called Christians, and pagan festivals were altered to festivals of the church, and pagan temples were called churches: and pagan idols, consecrated to demons, were called by Christian names. Now nothing could have answered better to corrupt the church than this. Just take one. The twenty-fifth of December was about the worst pagan feast. Well, it was afterward called Christmas; and the drunkenness and wickedness of that old festival continue to this day, only in the name of Christ. Take again this trick -for such it was. Millions of pagans worshiped the queen of heaven and her little child; but especially the queen, under different names. Her name was altered from Diana, &c., to Mary; and millions continue to bow down to her image to this day. How dreadful all this from paganism! And all this is the very cream of high church —I mean highest church!
May I now ask, where do you get the authority for the separated order of priests? The Old Testament gives the history and appointment of an earthly priesthood. It failed, like all else, even in the very first priests; some offered strange fire, and were destroyed. And even Aaron made the golden calf. Thus it began; and it ended in chief priests and high priests putting to death the Son of God. Did God set it up again in the church? There is no such thought in scripture as to have a separated order of priesthood in the church; no, God is dead against it, and gives a severe description of it in Jude; actually saying, “These be they who separate themselves, sensual,
having not the Spirit.” No, you have not a single text for it. That which is quoted in Heb. 5:4, clearly refers to the old Jewish priesthood.
The fact is the scripture speaks of the whole redeemed church of God, as being worshiping priests (1 Peter 2:9). And so they must be, if the blood of Jesus gives them boldness to enter the holiest, the conscience forever being perfected by the one offering of Christ. Do you not in “the Manual” do your utmost to neutralize all this, by setting aside the infinite value of that one sacrifice on the cross? and this you do by crying up your own sacrifices that never can take away sins.
Certainly Christ gave gifts to His church; as evangelists, teachers, and pastors, to minister His truth. But the idea of an order of priests to offer up sacrifices for the sins of the people; this is utterly repugnant to the New Testament, and destroys the very foundation of Christianity—the one only Infinite sacrifice of Christ. No, you must not go to scripture for your order, but again to paganism, and by returning as much as you can also to Judaism. And just as paganism became fused with the church, your order became established.
Nothing is more certain in history; no, if you want proof, you only need travel in India, or any pagan land. From the earliest days everywhere paganism has its order of priesthood. Why, take the pope himself, the holy head of all Christian priests of the West. Is there such a thought in the New Testament as a pope? Not the faintest, nor shadow of a promise of one. Surely you know that the Roman emperors were the very ancient pagan pontiffs; and when one of these was converted to Christianity, he thought it wrong to retain this pontifex of paganism, but the bishop of Rome actually took his pagan title, and retains it to this day. Well, do you know, that paganism, not scripture, is the undoubted source of the pope’s titles? No, in Thibet and China, you will see most of what you call high church, practiced still in paganism, only honestly, without Christian names. There you will find your monks and nuns practicing far greater austerities than you do. Yes, you must go to paganism, not to scripture, for the origin of your religion.
Very highly you may think of the doctrines of forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, ancient Gnostic doctrines of paganism. But the scripture actually speaks of these very doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1-4). I was going to say, and well they may. Did not these doctrines corrupt not only the priesthood, but the very world? I have read history these last forty years, but I have read of nothing producing more universal depravity than the “forbidding to marry.” Look back to those days of vaunted holy mother church—just before the trumpet demand for the Reformation; and after then too. The priests forbade to marry, but had power to compel every person to confess: and if any person crossed their will, they had only to point him or her out to a Dominican, and there is a rap at his door at midnight; he or she is hurried off to that awful prison, the holy inquisition, from which there is no voice or return. Oh, these chambers of torment and dungeons of untold horrors! This dreadful priestly power over the bodies and souls of men and women! Scripture then must be right, these are the doctrines of demons. Is it then a little higher, or a little lower down? Is it not to the depths of Satan?
But I forget tradition. The tradition of the church is what you stand by. But if the tradition of men flatly contradicts the word of God, which will you take? I will give you an illustration, and I must say this is a point of vital importance to me. Suppose I am in great distress and need, deeply in debt beyond all power ever to redeem myself; in a word, I am ruined. A very kind friend undertakes my whole responsibilities. I have a creditor to whom I owe a great sum. This kind friend pays the whole for me, as my friend and substitute. The creditor settles the whole account, discharges me from it, on Her Majesty’s stamp. But the priest of the place comes to me, and says, Yes, hath the creditor discharged your account? Tradition gives him a very bad word; do not trust him: do not believe him, nor his receipt. You will see after all that man will have you up for your debt, and he will cast you into prison. I reply, But he is an upright righteous tradesman, and he cannot first give me a receipt, and then afterward have me summoned for that debt; it would not be righteous to my substitute, who paid the debt. Of course, if I had not the receipt, I might well doubt. What I mean is this: As a sinner, I am totally ruined. The law can only curse me; it cannot redeem me, and I cannot redeem myself. God sent His beloved Son for this very purpose. That Holy One became my substitute. He was wounded for my transgressions, bruised for my sins; He was delivered for my iniquities. The wrath deserved by me He bore to the utmost. In fact, He just stood in my place. He was condemned for me; and He was raised from among the dead for my justification. Believing this, God, against whom I had sinned, is my justifier. He raised up Christ for this very purpose. See Christ, who once bore my sins, now at God’s right hand; and all this accounted to me on the principle of faith; all my sins atoned for, and Christ raised from among the dead is my receipt, my full and everlasting discharge—everlastingly discharged because Christ, my representative, is above. As He is, so am I. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” And the best of all is, “It is God that justifieth.” He says also, “and their sins and iniquities I will remember no more” (Heb. 10). Jesus says, I shall not come into judgment having passed from death unto life (John 5:24).
Now tradition, like the Jews of old, entirely denies the righteousness of God, and sets me working out a righteousness of my own; yes, by works of law. All depends on this one point—the righteousness of God. The word of God assures me that it is the righteousness of God that is revealed in the gospel; as to my very justification. Tradition leads me to doubt that God is my justifier: that after all He will be unfaithful to Christ who bore my sins; and that He will after all have me up in judgment for them: and I shall never know until then whether I shall be justified or condemned. No, this very “Manual,” after all your sacrifices, leaves a poor soul in uncertainty after death, and needing your prayers. Christ hath glorified God in this very matter: and God hath straightway glorified Him as my representative. And God hath made me, as a believer, accepted in the beloved one; but then, if God is unrighteous, all is lost. I must be judged after all. What is the creditor’s receipt worth, if he is unrighteous to my friend who paid the debt, and after all arrests me, and casts me into prison? And what is God’s justification worth, if after all He is not righteous? If He is not perfectly glorified by the death of the cross? And therefore His very righteousness is not my everlasting justification! I know tradition brands this faith in God as dreadful heresy.
Or take another illustration. The emperor declares peace is made—made on a righteous basis—peace is proclaimed. Tradition says, Ah, poor soldier, do not believe the emperor; keep on fighting and struggling. That emperor is an unrighteous man. He says one thing and means another. Now Jesus has made peace by His own blood: peace is made for me as a sinner on a righteous basis; and God proclaims peace to me. I believe Him; and I have peace with God—the very same peace that my dear Lord has in the unclouded presence of God forever. But tradition says as it were, No, you must not believe God: He is not to be trusted; He says one thing, but means to do another. He says He justifies you from all things (Acts 13:38), but He means to judge you for all your sins; and such a terrible Judge will you find Him, that you will need, if ever you get safe through that judgment, all the saints in the calendar to help you. Now when tradition is not in harmony with, but in flat contradiction to, the word of God, which shall I take?
I think I hear many a priest with a deep sigh, speaking low to himself, “Righteousness of God! I never thought of it in that way. Oh, that that everlasting peace were mine!” Ah, for me there are prayers, fastings, masses, floggings, agony of death, and perhaps millions of years of torments in purgatory, before I can enter into everlasting life, and enjoy peace with God. How different the Christianity of the Holy Scriptures! A dying thief believed in his heart, confessed Jesus the Lord with his lips, and that day was with Him in paradise. Think of those three sentences of Jesus to the woman of the city who was a sinner. “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” But tell me: Is it not shocking to doubt the righteousness of God? Did He not give His beloved Son to die for my sins? “Who was delivered for our offenses.” Did He not thus become my Substitute, “The Just for the unjust?” Now was not God glorified by that death on the cross? Did He fail? No! was He not raised again for our justification? (Rom. 4:24, 26). Did ever creditor give such a discharge as this? And mark, it is God who gives this discharge; God who raised Christ my Substitute from the dead, for the very purpose of being my living everlasting discharge from all sins. By the blood of Jesus I am thus justified from my sins. The resurrection of Jesus is God’s assurance of that justification to my soul; BELIEVING GOD, righteousness is thus reckoned unto me. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Thus the righteousness of God is unto all, and upon all that believe. And not only are believers thus justified from their sins, but also justified from sin, the root of all sins, by being dead with Christ, and risen in Him (Rom. 5:12-19; 6:7; Col. 2:12, 13). And “it is God that justifieth.” Is He just in doing it? Is He false, or is He true? Is He faithful to the claims of Christ once offered on the cross? There can be no question; for God hath raised Jesus from the dead. Then there can be no question that “By him all that believed ARE justified from all things” (Acts 13:38). I must confess the word of God seems clear enough. You may point to the holy popes’ councils, fathers, bishops, and holy saints that teach us humbly to doubt. I see the choice. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
The post has just arrived. I must close these questions of the inquirer for the present. Here is a book-parcel by post. My heart beats quickly as I open it. Here they are. I began to write this paper, assured they would come; and had written up to this point. And there they lie before me, the very books used in the dark hole of Cambridge. Not copies, but the identical books used in that dark chamber of idolatry, for the preparation of the parish priests of the church of England. This may seem strange to some. Often however our God is thus pleased, first to bid His feeble instrument do a certain thing for Him, then afterward give confirmation to the work of dependent faith. Every line above was written, feeling the absolute need of these very books, and in faith that those very books would come into my bands; and here they are.
“The Manual of the Holy Confraternity” I have already noticed. This book reveals the fact of a vast confederacy in the church of England, determined to supplant Christianity by a system of mixed idolatry, the highest worship and adoration to a God of their own making, of bread or wine. Every form of prayer, praise, and loving adoration, that should be offered to the true God and the Lord Jesus Christ, is given to this idol, utterly contrary to scripture. So that while it is located in the English church, it is no longer limited to an attack on that church, but must be regarded as a vast attack on our common Christianity.
We will now open this second book, “The Garden of the Soul.”
This is a well-known Roman Catholic book, and therefore does not call for particular notice. A Roman Catholic prayer-book is thus found to be used by the Holy Confraternity. For those who may know nothing of it, a few words are needed. First, we have an engraving of the blessed mother of Jesus, as the queen of heaven in glory, surrounded with twelve stars, borrowed no doubt from the symbol of Israel in Rev. 12. Then follows a summary of the faith and practice of the Roman Catholic church, open, candid, and clear—much of which is common to all Christians.
But tradition is put on an equal footing with the scriptures (ch. 19). These traditions, on examination, frequently contradict themselves; and are always contrary to scripture.
For instance; it is said, “Extreme unction, which wipes away the remains of sins” (ch. 19); but purgatory flatly contradicts this. Both as flatly contradict scripture, that the one offering forever perfects—perfected forever. And again, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). And again, “Unto him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). Take another tradition. We must believe that Jesus Christ will come from heaven at the last day to judge us all; that all the dead, both good and bad, shall rise from their graves at the sound of the last trumpet, and shall be judged by Him, &c. (ch. 20:13). This is in flat contradiction to the tradition respecting vast numbers of saints now in glory, so holy that they can intercede for us poor sinners here on earth. These two traditions flatly contradict each other. What! have all the departed saints to be raised and judged? and is their eternal state still uncertain after being so long in glory? Have they yet to be judged? The Lord Jesus in holy scripture, when speaking on this very subject assures all believers that they shall not come into judgment (John 5:24). No, scripture is most explicit in direct contradiction to the tradition of a general judgment; that “as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto their that look for him shall be appear the second time, without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:27). Search the scriptures, and you will not find one single text to support the tradition of a general judgment. When speaking on quite another blessed subject—the personal rewards of the children of God—then indeed, in that sense, it is most blessed to know we shall all stand before the judgment seat, or Beema, of Christ. Oh, how many then, who have been cursed and burned by man, will receive the martyr’s crown of glory! But when Jesus comes to take His redeemed, there can be no question of sin to them, otherwise Christ would have died in vain. He comes as Savior (Phil. 3:20). “When we shall see him, we shall be like him” (1 John 3: 2). Will He judge those who are like Himself? No: He says, “The glory that thou hast given me, I have given them.” Brighter than light is the hope of His coming. The sons of darkness have turned it to midnight gloom, and dread of judgment. All true, sad, and everlasting, to the rejecters of God’s great salvation.
But to return, from p. 20: we have a vast number of what may be called Christian laws, precepts, and duties; many most excellent, others utterly unscriptural; but all on false ground built on a false foundation. “Every Christian in order to attain life everlasting, must” do all the things that follow. Therefore the principle on which all is built is, Do this and live. Thus, as a legal system, the bondage of all these rules must become greater than that from which the death of Christ delivered the believing Jews. If therefore the law entered that the offense might abound (Rom. 5:20), the effect of all this mistaken and unscriptural system must be to provoke the transgression of these rules. If the tree be bad, the fruit must be bad also. A mistake in the first line of a schoolboy’s sum must produce mistakes all through, and at the end. The Lord Jesus says, “He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life” (John 6). The Holy Ghost says, “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE” (1 John 5:10). Thus, as to foundation truth, no two books could be more opposed than the word of God, and the “Garden of the Soul.” The one is God declaring that eternal life is a gift, and that he that believeth hath it, and that from this new life flows out the fruit of a holy life. The other says, No, you must keep this most elaborate law, “in order to everlasting life.” Thus the whole system denies the record of God, and makes Him a liar. I cannot both have everlasting life, and at the same time be keeping all these laws in order to get it. Thus while the word of God gives divine certainty, the “Garden of the Soul” leaves us in darkness and uncertainty; yes, even for ages after death.
One cannot wonder then at all the confusion and contradiction of scripture that follows. There is no holy boldness to enter the holiest {Heb. 10:19}; no assurance of sins forgiven: but a sense of distance from God, and consequent gloomy misery, beseeching the blessed Mary, apostles, and a host of saints, to pray to God for them. I do not like to copy these dismal prayers of unbelief. The greater part of this book is prayer to the queen of heaven. Then follows the mass, with full instructions and candid explanations. It is regarded as a sacrifice—“A most powerful means to move God to show mercy to us in the forgiveness of our sins” (p. 39). They believe the bread to be truly God, and as such worship it. Still no relief. There is confession, kneeling to the priest, and praying to him, “Pray, father, give me your blessing for I have sinned.” There is confession to God, to Mary, Michael, apostles, &c., and repeated prayers to all these. No, it would be difficult to invent any book more contrary to the scripture than this “Garden.” There are prayers for the departed faithful; prayers for the miserable souls in purgatory: “Have mercy on the souls of the faithful departed.” No one, except he saw and read, could conceive it possible for the human mind to sink into such depths of unbelief. There are also prayers for the pope, prayers for England, page after page. And then the “Garden” ends with the Ordinary of the Mass in English.
We turn to the larger book used in the chamber of darkness at Cambridge.
“THE DAY OFFICE OF THE CHURCH According to the calendar of THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND."
The preface very ably explains how the Roman Breviary has been translated, and adapted to the church of England. All is Romanism: there are services for almost every hour and day in the year; lauds, prime, terce, sext, nones, and vespers; feasts of my Lord, and feasts of my Lady, feasts of the angels, feasts of the saints. Sometimes you pray for them, then again you beg they will pray for you. What would the apostle Paul say to such a book for the observance of hours and days, and years? This is what he did say: “How turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:9). Now what is the real root of all this bondage; this perfect labyrinth of observances? Can it be anything else but unbelief, and the rejection of the record of God? The believer with his eye fixed on the risen Christ at God’s right hand can say, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). His sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. In direct opposition to all this the priest says, “God Almighty have mercy upon thee, and forgive thee thy sins.” And again, “The merit of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the prayers of our Holy Mother, the Church, whatsoever good thou hast done, or by God’s grace shall do, be unto thee remission of thy sins.”
Such is the unbelief of the chambers of Cambridge. Christianity and these sons of darkness, are as far apart as the poles. It would be impossible in a small tract to follow the vain repetitions and gross unscriptural statements of this book. I cannot but think that every sincere Romanist must be ashamed of these men. If they believe Romanism to be right, why do they not honestly avow themselves?
But I must let you see further what these books contain. No words can sufficiently describe the dreadful idolatry of this Day Office of the Church, used by these so-called priests of the Church of England. Could Christ be more deeply dishonored than by the following collect? (P. 117 for Dec. 6). “O God, who by numberless miracles hast honored Blessed Nicolas, Thy Bishop: grant, we beseech Thee, that by his merits and intercession we may be delivered from the flames of hell, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” Can any man utter this prayer without entirely rejecting the testimony of God to the sacrifice of the cross of Christ and to His intercession? Or again, on the same page, is not the supreme worship to the blessed Virgin Mary exactly like the old worship of Diana or Tammuz? Is it not perfectly dreadful? “What mortal tongue may dare to raise, O Mother of our God, thy praise? Ye angels come, and lift your song: To you the office should belong.” Can any creature, however blessed, be raised to this place of supreme worship? Was she the eternal mother of God? or the creature mother of the humanity of our adorable Lord? As to His humanity, she was the mother of the Lord. But does the word of God ever present her either as an object of highest worship, or as an intercessor of the saints? These priests who shut out the light say, “With delight let us celebrate the conception of Blessed Mary; so may she intercede for us to Jesus Christ our Lord (p. 178).” And do not suppose that Ritualists limit their idolatry to Blessed Mary. This book is full of curious antiphons. Take one to Lucy (on Dec. 13), than which nothing could be more contrary to scripture: “In thy patience thou hast possessed thy soul, O Lucy, spouse of Christ; thou hast hated the things which are in the world, and thou shinest among angels; thou hast overcome the enemy with thine own blood. O virgin Lucy, why dost thou seek of me, what thou thyself canst continually give to thy mother?” I might give a vast number of quotations of prayers to various saints, as “That we who know that we are guilty of our iniquities, may be delivered therefrom by the prayers of thy Blessed Martyr Vincent” (p. 182). Yes, in this book the atoning death of Jesus is simply robbed of all its glory. There is evidently the design of a master spirit, through the whole, to set aside the person and death of Christ, as the sole salvation of God to lost sinners.
Just as the types of the Old Testament set forth every aspect of that precious Holy One, so this book finds a saint to deny every aspect of the cross of Christ. Is it not through the death and resurrection of Christ that the believer passes to eternal glory? Ritualism has a Richard for this (April 3). “O God, who hast made thy church to shine by the deeds and glorious miracles of Blessed Richard, Thy confessor and bishop: grant, that we Thy servants, through his intercession, may attain to the blessedness of eternal glory (p. 194). “I ask, Can men who use these abominable prayers, have any honest pretensions to acknowledge the authority of the word of God? I might multiply extracts of a similar character. We have seen in the word of God that the Father runs to meet the penitent sinner (Luke 15). Thus Jesus reveals the Father; and thus He speaks to the weeping sinner: “Woman, thy sins are forgiven thee... thy faith hath saved thee... go in peace” (Luke 7; 15). With Ritualism, the mother of God, angelic choirs, patriarchal sires, prophets, saints, the Baptist, and all apostles “Strive to win from God remission of our sin (p. 231). And with their suffrages the clergy join.” In many parts of this Day Office there is either the most gross ignorance, or designed confusion of scripture with superstition. Take this collect: “O God, who didst give the law of Moses on the top of Mount Sinai, and by Thy holy angels didst wonderfully convey the body of Blessed Katherine, Thy virgin and martyr, to the same place; grant we beseech Thee, that for her sake, and at her intercessions, we may be enabled to reach that mount, which is Christ (p. 236).” Can this be anything but willful perversion? Is Mount Sinai Christ? The very symbol of bondage, and the curse to all under it (Gal. 3:10; 4:24, 25). We are thus taught by High Church to pray to God that St. Katharine may by her intercessions lead us to the place of the curse. Can human folly go beyond this? It is written, “Their folly shall he manifest unto all” (2 Tim. 3:9). Many of my readers no doubt will be in happy ignorance that Ritualism would lead us thus to address all the apostles:
“We praise you all with hearts sincere,
As suppliants now we worship here;
To your prevailing word ‘twas given
To close and ope the doors of heaven.
How blessed is prayer in the word of God! The apostle Paul says, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,... that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19). Compare this with the following written instructions found in the Office of the Church. “In censing the altar there are twenty-five swings. DIRECTIONS FOR OFFICIANT. Bow to the crucifix. Salute same with three double swings. Turn toward Epistle side, salute back of altar slab, three swings, one swing lower corner of Epistle side, one swing upper corner; proceed towards center of altar, salute forepart three swings. Repeat on Gospel side, and return toward Epistle corner, salute forepart of altar six swings. Salute, three swings.” This may be a very fine imitation of pagan worship, but what has it to do with Christianity? Is it not the very opposite of New Testament prayer, and worship in spirit and in truth?
It would swell this tract far beyond my present intention to notice, “Extreme unction; communion of the sick with the reserved Eucharist”; or the priest carrying God in a little box to the dying; confession; prayers before mass, and prayers after mass; all of which are in this Office of the Church. Call it no longer Ritualism. It is a vast Romish conspiracy of more than two thousand six hundred clergymen in the Church of England. “The union consists of more than sixteen thousand five hundred, of whom two thousand six hundred are clergymen.” We now know by these books that it is Romanism. If the Garden of the Soul, and the Roman Breviary be not full-blown Romanism, what is? Let us then go to the fountainhead and examine the authoritative teaching of Rome. This I hope to do candidly in tracts to follow -comparing with scripture the Council of Trent. If you, my reader, are in this dark Confraternity, may the Lord use this paper to the full deliverance of your soul!
Thus is England, after all the fiery sufferings of her martyrs, returning to her vomit. This Holy Confraternity, or dark confederacy, is taking possession of her parishes. Ministers of Christ must be displaced by the priests of the hole in the wall. No, Christ must be displaced by the priest, shall I not say, by an antichrist? In how many things does this man in black and broad brim, take the place of Christ, and is against Christ!
I will notice a few. A sinner is burdened with his sins, weary and heavy laden. Jesus who died for his sins says, “come unto me, and I will give you rest.” And “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” Mark the presumption of this antichrist. “The priest, wearing a surplice, and a violet stole, shall be seated in the confessional seat (which ought always to be in the church); the penitent kneeling at his side shall ask his blessing” (Litany 4). No, his very name, and office is strictly antichristian. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is shown to be the long foretold priest, after the order of Melchisedec, an order one and exclusively in contrast with the many priests of the Aaronic order. As the fulfillment of all Aaronic priesthood, He is gone into heaven, and soon He is to come out, in the full display of His Melchisedec priesthood, King of righteousness, and King of peace. But the first order, the Aaronic, is taken away, with all its many priests, and many sacrifices, which could never take away sins. God hath established the second—the one only and exclusive sacrifice and priesthood of Christ. In Christ then we have one sacrifice, one High Priest. With those who say they are Jews (separated priests) and are not, many sacrifices, many priests. The one forever perfects; the other never perfects. The one is eternal redemption, and gives the purged worshiper boldness to enter the holiest; the other is the system of many priests and many sacrifices, and leaves man shut out of the presence of God: “The Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest” (Heb. 9:8). For believers now, except in the sense that all Christians are priests (Rev. 1:6), Christ is the one exclusive priest. This must be so, for every high priest must have gifts and sacrifices, to offer. He is ordained for that very purpose (Heb. 8:3, 4). But the one sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value; so that if He were on earth He could not be a priest, seeing the apostle said, “There are priests that offer gifts according to the law,” He could not go back to that which was imperfect, He was not of that order, “who needeth daily as those high priests to offer up sacrifice for this he did once when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world” (Heb. 9:25). He could not add to that which is infinite. He does not even stand as a priest in heaven. This would imply the work of sacrifice was not finished once. No, “we have such an high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens. This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” Is not all this most clearly taught in Heb. 7; 8; 9; 10?
But now the many priests must deny all this. The many priests must have many sacrifices. But if Christ could not possibly add to His own once offered sacrifice, what shall we say of the pretensions of these men, who practically say, if Christ could not, we can? And if He could have no more that He could offer, we have. We can turn bread or wine into Christ, and offering Him again and again, we can set aside the one offering, and the one high priest who sat down in heaven; we can establish the order of many priests, and many offerings on earth. I ask every Christian reader, is not this dreadful? Is not every sacrifice the pretended priest offers on the altar, a distinct denial that the sacrifice of Christ is infinite, and that it perfects in perpetuity the believer sanctified by it?
Do not say that I have written strongly; every word is warranted by these books before me. They are full of idolatry. The worship of the queen of heaven; the god made of bread, and carried in a little gold or silver box, and offered to God as a sacrifice for sins; prayers for the faithful dead; the priest taking the place of Christ; the grace of God obscured, yes, practically denied.
Many will say, what are we to do? Here we are in a country parish. We know that Christ gave gifts to His church, evangelists, pastors, teachers, and we see in the scriptures how these were used to edification by the Holy Ghost in the church. (Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12; 14). But here is the priest, who says, as it were, Christ has no right to give or use anyone but me. Well, it is just this; and there is no middle place betwixt. Christ or Antichrist.
Oh, precious words; oh, blessed refuge in these days of darkness. Jesus says, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst” (Matt. 18:20). Which is best, to gather with two or three to the Lord Jesus (it may be in your own house), searching the scriptures, and trusting the Lord.
Oh, my fellow Christians, it is not only the Church of England that is attacked by this Confraternity; it is the most precious truth as it is in Christ. Awake, thou that sleepest, search the scriptures; and test everything by the word of God. If an army invaded this country, would it not be aroused? Here is a secret army of priests, invading our most sacred and eternal interests, and few raise the voice of warning and alarm. To whom can you turn but to God and His word?
Plain Words to Ritualists on Their Way to Rome No. 2
Baptismal Regeneration: The Council of Trent Tested by the Word of God
In our last tract, No. 1, we described our visit to the dark hole of “The Holy Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament” in Cambridge with its images of idolatry, and the books used by the priests-associates. Its windows were carefully boarded up, and papered over. Just as we found where the light of heaven should have come in, there stood the altar of Rome; so by the books used by this Confraternity we found, where the testimony of God to the one sacrifice of Christ should have been. there stood the many sacrifices of the Mass which never can take away sins.
These books used by some two thousand six hundred priests, or would-be priests, of Rome, under the disguise of being clergymen of the Church of England—these books are simply and wholly Romish. It is no use then treating this confederacy as merely ritualistic, but as a secret compact organization, to establish Romanism in this land. We propose then to go to the fountainhead, from which flows this stream of Ritualism, and the place to which every advancing step leads.
It is then a matter of the very utmost importance that we should understand what Romanisrn is. If it be of God, would it not be well, if not only these thousands of clergymen were leading the people back to it, but if we all were at once to go back to it? But if it be of God, it will be assuredly according to God’s word. With an ever increasing reverence for that word, and a sincere desire to test the Roman Church by that word, we feel it will only be just to examine the doctrines and practices of Rome, as found in her own authoritative books. And as all Roman Catholics acknowledge the authority of the Council of Trent, let us test the decrees of that Council by the word of God. The Garden of the Soul, and other authentic Roman Catholic books may be referred to. Let it be however distinctly understood, that we do not propose to combat Romanism by any other religious system of doctrine, but our business is solely to examine it by the word of God.
I had thought of going at once to the all-important subject of JUSTIFICATION, but there is so much said in these decrees, about the sacrament of Baptism, as the instrumental cause of justification, that it will be well for us to examine first:
The Decree Concerning Original Sin (p. 21).
Notice the first line of this decree—“That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God, &c.” This would close at a stroke all inquiry and examination. If we have not the faith set forth by these men, be it according or contrary to the word of God, no matter; for without their Catholic faith it is impossible to please God! But if you turn to Heb. 11, the passage quoted says nothing about their Catholic faith. They have thus added to the word of God. And it is written, “if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book” (Rev. 22:18). The Fathers of the Council made this mistake; Paul was not speaking of faith in them, but faith in God. It is not nice to pervert the scripture at starting. There is not such a thought in Heb. 11 as “our Catholic faith.”
We are perfectly agreed as to the utter ruin and sin, in which the whole race of Adam is born. “By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (from Rom. 5:12, Douay Version). Every man on the face of the earth is a sad proof of this. By nature he is a child of wrath. He is born with a sinful nature. We are also agreed that, the scriptures nowhere teach that the powers of human nature can deliver man from this evil nature of sin. But the remedy! that is the question. The Council, speaking of infants newly born, says that original sin from Adam has need to be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting: or perhaps more distinctly, “For by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet in themselves commit any sins, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that which they have contracted by generation, may be cleansed away by regeneration. For unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Then follows a little cursing which we will notice soon.
We never beard of this rule of faith in the scripture, no, it is from tradition. Baptismal regeneration is “from tradition.” Infants are baptized for the remission of’ sins. What sins? “They cannot as yet commit any.” Future sins? Does this Church teach that? No. Does she teach transmigration? are they sins committed before they were born? No; then here is a pretty sample of tradition! It is too bad to charge the apostles with it.
But you say the decree points to scripture. “For unless a man be born again of water” &c. (John 3:5). Did the Fathers ever examine the context of this verse? Is there a thought in the passage of the baptism of infants for remission of sins? Certainly not one. Examine it carefully. Is there one word even about Christian baptism? A ruler of the Jews came to Jesus by night, mark, before Christian baptism was known or instituted. The blessed Lord speaks to him as a Jew, about the earthly things of the kingdom of God; but does not speak to him about the heavenly things of the kingdom of God. He tells him what he ought to have known that man must be born again, or wholly anew. Nicodemus is greatly perplexed. He then says, “Amen, Amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus still says, How can these things be? Jesus reminds him that be ought to know these things. He said, “Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?” And again He says, “I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” These Fathers of Trent seem to have been very ignorant of scripture. They do not seem in the least to distinguish between the earthly kingdom of God, promised to the people of Israel by Jehovah—that which the blessed Lord talked about to Nicodemus—and the heavenly truth and glory of the church. If Jesus had meant baptism, either of infants just born, or of believers in Christ’s death and resurrection, or forgiveness of sins through His blood, and baptism in his name, crucified, dead, and risen, how could this ruler of Israel have known a word about it?
But now read the word of Jehovah to Israel in Ezek. 36:22-36. All is, as the Lord said, the kingdom. They shall dwell in their own land. The waste cities shall be builded. This land that is desolate shall be like the garden of Eden. “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, &c.” Therefore this ruler of the Jews ought to have understood these earthly promises, especially as so many types of the law showed this absolute need of cleansing and holiness. Another scripture, speaking of the same thing, says, “In that day there shall be a fountain opened TO THE HOUSE OF DAVID, and to the INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM, for sin and for uncleanness” (Zech. 13:1). And as Nicodemus ought to have understood these earthly things of the kingdom, it is proved Jesus did not speak of Christian baptism in this text, “Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit,” &c.
Now examine His own explanation, how this new life is communicated, in this very chapter. Does He say, “As Moses commanded the laver to be placed at the door of the tabernacle, that the priests might wash when they entered; even so every person must be washed in water, that whosoever is baptized by a priest shall not perish, but have everlasting life?” Is there such a thought in this chapter? but if baptismal regeneration were true, and the Lord meant it to Nicodemus, He would then have so put it.
Mark the contrast of all this. Indeed, we may say the law even taught the contrary: before a person could reach the laver, there was the brazen altar of burnt-offering. The blood must be shed first, the atonement first. So here the Lord teaches us, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Whom shall I trust? The Fathers set before me baptism, as the medium by which I am to receive the new life. Jesus sets before me His own death on the cross, and faith as the medium, if I may so express it. His words are, “Whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The Council will not allow water here as a figure of speech; it simply refers to that which a ruler of the Jews ought to have known of the typical meaning of water in the law, and the prophets of Israel. You can say, “he that is born of the Spirit is spirit”; that is, the new nature is of the Spirit. But you could not say, “He that is born of water is water.” Could these doctors have said we are no longer flesh and bone, but water?
We must conclude then, that the Council made a grave mistake of ignorance in quoting this text on which they so much rely. It could not possibly refer to baptism of newborn infants for the remission of sins they had never committed. Neither could it refer to the baptism of the church at all, but to the earthly kingdom of Israel, and therefore ought to have been understood by Nicodemus. The Fathers evidently wrested it from its proper connection and meaning.
That baptism points to the same thing may be very certain. Whether of the individual, or of the future nation of Israel, there must be holiness—cleansing from all uncleanness; and by the Spirit a new, wholly new, nature. And that water is used as a figure of the word none can deny. “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, &c.” (Eph. 5:25). The Fathers say by the priestly washing of water in baptism; Paul says, “the washing of water by the word.” Did Peter understand that Christian believers are born again by the sacrament of baptism? Hear what he says on this subject, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD which liveth and abideth forever. And this is the word which is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:23-25). Is not this remarkable that the Council should so flatly contradict scripture on this very foundation-doctrine of their whole system? For it follows if this foundation is true, there needs no other. If an infant by baptism is regenerated—made a child of God, an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven, or member of the one body of Christ—then there is no need to preach the gospel to such, and no need to be born again by the word of God. If it be true, it thus entirely sets aside scripture: and if it be false, it proclaims a soul-destroying delusion to millions of the human race.
Let us carefully examine a little further. Not only does this canon teach baptism for the remission of sins, but also “that in them that which they have contracted by generation may be cleansed away by regeneration.” And if any one asserts that all that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says it is only erased, or not imputed, let him be cursed. And after a number of texts which we shall find misapplied to baptism, the baptized are spoken of as “made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God.” I ask, if this were true, if baptism did all this, could Paul possibly say, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel?” What gospel could be better than baptism, if there were a shadow of truth in these Fathers’ doctrines? They represent sin taken away; the person innocent, immaculate, pure, all that we contracted by generation gone. And all who assert to the contrary to this are to be accursed. The beloved John, inspired of God, denies this. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). These Fathers ought to have known scripture better before they cursed so freely. Their curse would rest on the beloved John himself. But John tells them they deceive themselves. I will be cursed with John, rather than be deceived with the Council of Trent.
I said we would notice the misquotations of scripture. They say, “There is therefore no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death, &c.” Is this ignorance, or wilfulness? Could these Fathers be so ignorant of this glorious truth, of no condemnation now to them that are in Christ Jesus—so ignorant of the Epistle to the Romans where it is found—as to apply this to water baptism? We will not pursue it at this moment, as we shall examine the scripture when on “Justification.”
The synod then goes on, and fully admits that concupiscence still remains, but it is not sin, unless we consent to it: and further, “this concupiscence which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as being, truly and properly sin, in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. And if any one is of a contrary opinion, let him be Anathema” (p. 24). Is not this dreadful? The Catholic Church sets itself confessedly against the inspired apostle, no, against God. Their curses would rest on the apostle for having a different opinion from themselves. God says lust is sin. They do not call it so. If any one is of a contrary opinion, let him be accursed. Christ declares the contrary. He says to lust is to commit sin in the heart (Matt. 5:28). Paul says, “But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence;” and after full deliverance in Christ he says, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:8, 25). The flesh in regenerate Paul is thus called sin. The apostle John, speaking of the regenerate surely, says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Well, says the Holy Synod, we do not call it sin; and if any one does, let him be accursed. Yes, God, and Christ, and Paul, and John all come under the curse by this dreadful decree. And this is called “Holy Synod!” And does not every true Christian mourn over his inward corruptions, his evil nature so prone to commit sins—the root from which all the sins grow? And does he not confess it to God as sin, and abhor it? Holy Church says, we curse him if he does. How low had Rome sunk, when she could issue such a decree! Oh, Lord, deliver Thy people from her.
They teach there is no harm in this inbred lust if we consent not (p. 23). Now take a case. Suppose a priest knows a decided Christian who loves the Lord and studies His word. His corrupt heart hates this man, and he lusts to take his life. For many reasons he strives hard against this dreadful desire. Of course at one time he would have had him off to the Inquisition and dispatched him quickly, and thus have been a murderer. But suppose there is no outward action, what says the scripture? “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer” (1 John 3:15). Does not even common sense, or at least natural conscience, tell us that to desire to sin is sin? Is not the tree known by its fruit? There remains all this, they tell us, in the baptized, and yet all that has the true proper nature of sin is taken away—nature, guilt, and all. The baptized are innocent, immaculate, pure, and harmless. Could there be greater confusion, or more daring denial of the word of God?
Let us not however judge them too harshly: the word of God was little studied in those days. Many, no doubt, were seeking truth, in the midst of this awful darkness. These Fathers entirely overlooked, in their quotation of scripture, the all-important distinction between sin and sins. Many serious mistakes arose through this oversight. I will notice one. I would state that the authorized Douay translation lies before me. I will quote from it. “Behold the Lamb of God: behold him who taketh away the SIN of the world” (John 1:29). Now this professedly infallible Council scarcely ever quotes this scripture correctly; instead of “sin,” they say “sins,” which completely destroys the meaning: and is utterly opposed to all scripture. A work has been accomplished by the Lamb of God, by which sin shall be finally taken away, and the new heavens and new earth appear, where sin shall be no more. But to quote it as if the death of the Sin-bearer had taken away personally the sins of the whole world is to teach universal salvation. Where Jesus is spoken of as the propitiation, there it is for the world {i.e., in 1 John 2:2}. The blood is on the mercy-seat: and thus mercy and forgiveness are proclaimed to all. But where Jesus is spoken of as the Substitute, actually bearing and taking away sins, it is always limited to believers. We see Him, the Sin-bearer, exhausting all judgment due to sins in Heb. 9:27, 28. But there it is, “the sins of many.” These Fathers do not seem to have had the least idea of this, neither had they ever noticed that in the Epistle to the Romans the very verse they quote begins the question of sin. The other question of sins had been fully discussed up to that very verse, or end of Rom. 5:11. Now there is no thought there of being justified from sins by baptism. It is by faith, without works of law. But more of this in our next. I say baptism is not once put before these believers as the means of their justification from their sins, but the blood of Jesus. But when we are thus justified from our sins, what about sin? The root of them all, that which came by Adam? This is the main question from v. 12 (i.e., Rom. 5:12) to the end of ch. 7.
As to sin then, Holy Synod puts baptism before us. The Spirit puts Christ before us—Christ in contrast to Adam. By Adam came sin and death and condemnation to all his race. By Christ came righteousness, and life, and justification, abounding over all both sin and offense—to all in Him. We are thus justified from sins by His blood, His precious death for us. We are justified from sin by being dead with Him, and raised again. Only this is not yet accomplished, in fact, in us as to the body. But faith does so account it to be, or reckon it: “So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:11, Douay). If you read these chapters in Romans, noticing the important distinction betwixt sin and sins, it is very clear and divinely complete. Without this distinction you cannot wonder at the Fathers’ mistakes.
Should baptism then be set aside? Surely not. What is it then? If it is not regeneration, what is it? Let us show a photograph to a child. I ask the child, What is this? Is it Mr. Johnstone? No. “Yes,” says the child. It is a most striking, most correct, likeness—a picture drawn by the sun. But is it the living real person? Oh, no; but it is a good likeness. Or take another. Here is a map of an estate. How very correct: every field and tree and fence, oh, how exact! But is it the estate? Now baptism is like one of these. What a type of doctrine! what an exact picture of the passing from death to life of a believer, dead with Christ, and risen in Him. Nothing can show more clearly how sin is gone forever, as a thing to be charged against the believer, than being reckoned of God to be dead with Christ, and risen in Him.
You only need to read Rom. 6 prayerfully in dependence on the Holy Spirit, to see the full force of this. But though you may use the photograph to describe the man, or the map to describe the estate, and baptism to describe this death and new creation in Christ Jesus, yet the photograph is not the man? The map is not the estate; and water washes not from sin. “Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” A map is very useful in describing an estate; and in the beginning baptism was evidently most expressive of the passing from death unto life. To this day a baptized Jew is looked upon by his kindred as dead.
It is just the same too with a Hindoo. It was the solemn taking the place of death with Christ, in His name, for forgiveness of sins. The prophets did not bear witness to the baptism, but “To HIM give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). Thus on the church’s birthday, the three thousand who had rejected and murdered the Lord Jesus first heard of His death, fore-ordained of God, and His resurrection foretold by David; and that He, whom they had crucified, was the exalted prince and Savior. They were told to change their minds. This involved the deepest moral self-judgment, and owning their dreadful guilt; and be baptized in His name for forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The Fathers, reading all this, have mistaken the portrait for the man, the map for the estate, the water of baptism for faith in the mighty work of redemption accomplished on the cross. They received the word and were baptized. And in answer to the jailor’s cry, “What must I do to be saved,” did the apostle say, Be baptized, and this will regenerate you? No; but, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house” (Acts 17:31). He believed, was saved, and that very night was baptized. Let us listen to the words of Jesus as he explains so simply how this mighty change takes place, this passing from death to life. “Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, BUT IS PASSED FROM DEATH TO LIFE” (John 5:24, Douay). Oh, let those words of Jesus sink deep into your soul. What profound certainty they give! Have you heard His word, does it come, because His word, with divine authority to you? God who gave Him to die for our sins, and raised Him from among the dead for our justification? Do you believe God who sent Jesus? Oh, infinite love! Now those words, “hath life everlasting”; do you believe that sweet word “hath,” and “cometh not into judgment?” all your judgment borne by Jesus? And as surely as God gives you this precious faith, so surely you have passed from death unto life.
All this divine certainty Jesus gives the believer: can the Fathers in Council give the like certainty by baptism? No, never, never, never. And yet baptism very distinctly illustrates this. Dead with Christ, risen with Christ; one with Him forever; passed from death unto life; once in Adam, now in Christ. Oh, read those precious words of Jesus over again. They speak life to your soul. Look at His hands and His side: can you doubt Him?
But you may say, If I believe these words of Jesus, and thus know with certainty that I have life everlasting, that Council will curse me. If Jesus bless, let them curse. Oh, how sad to think that so many have been cursed, and burned, and, if it had been possible, sent to perdition by these Fathers of High Church. And for what? For believing the words of Jesus! And 2600 clergymen of the Church of England are doing their utmost to bring these days again!
Oh, my soul, they would rob thee of the sweetest deepest joy these precious words of Jesus give. The absolute certainty that thou hast life everlasting, and shalt not come into judgment; passed from death unto life. In place of this, they would thrust thee into darkness and uncertainty, crying even like a Jew before Jesus died, God be merciful to me a sinner.
But to return: not only do we find the Council of Trent in utter confusion about baptism, but they seem at utter variance with the word of God as to regeneration itself, however effected. The doctrine of Trent is that whatever has been contracted by generation is cleansed away by regeneration. And if any one asserts that all that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, &c., let him be anathema. The idea is clearly the restoration of the original Adam-state before the fall, they “are made innocent, pure, harmless” (p. 23). Now apart from the means by which this is effected, where is this the doctrine of scripture? No, they themselves contradict it over and over again. They say, “They are renewed, as the apostle says, day by day, that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh” (p. 36). Had Adam to mortify his members? How would you mortify innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless members? The apostle does indeed say to the faithful brethren in Christ, who have this certainty, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection; evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry” (Col. 3:4). Can the Fathers apply all this and much more to Adam, innocent, pure, and harmless? And if any man says this evil in him is not sin, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him (1 John 1:8). The Council says this is not, properly speaking, sin: but all that is truly sin is taken away. Therefore the Council of Trent deceives itself, and the truth is not in it. Is this the infallibility of Rome?
I grant this is a difficult question, and no amount of human wisdom can explain it. But the scriptures of truth explain it very simply, and show Rome to be doubly mistaken on regeneration. That which is born of God is not Adam restored to innocence; but a wholly new nature. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). And it is not that evil Adam nature—call it sin or flesh, that is taken away. But in the believer “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other” (Gal. 5:17). That this refers to the true Christian is evident, for no other person has the Spirit. “For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). Thus, although the believer is a new creature, or new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17), and not restored to mere Adam-nature, but made a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), yet the scriptures distinctly recognize the fact that the old sinful nature is still in him, though having been crucified, and judged in the person of the Holy One, his substitute, who was made SIN for us. It is thus our privilege, and by the Spirit dwelling in us we have the power, to reckon it dead, and to overcome it. But the epistles distinctly recognize the members of this evil nature which need to be mortified and overcome. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” But strange to say, these learned Fathers were profoundly ignorant of this scriptural doctrine of two natures in the believer. And hence their gross errors in seeking to restore human nature, the flesh, by sacramental infusion. They only know man in the flesh made innocent, pure, and harmless. They have lost all knowledge of men judged in Christ, and risen in Christ, in direct contrast with the apostle. He says, “Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more; and if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; and, behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:16). The Lord had taught this Himself. He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die; itself remaineth alone. But if it die it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24). Thus His holy incarnation, and spotless life in the flesh, could have been of no use whatever, unless He had died. The idea of His incarnation saving or improving man is utterly false and unscriptural. The apostle knew not Christ for any such purpose. It is just as false as baptism restoring man in the flesh -innocent, pure, and harmless. These are mere dreams of men, who had lost the truth of the new creation in Christ risen from the dead. With all the doctrine of Incarnation and sacraments the priests can give you, and all their assurance that these take away sins, it still remains true “that if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). But this is more directly connected with our next tract, “Justification,” as taught by the Council of Trent.
Tell me, is not the experience of every Christian born of God, in keeping with the scriptural doctrine of the two natures? Have you been truly awakened to a sense of your lost guilty condition? Have you been brought to Jesus to hear His word? do you believe God who sent Him? The forgiveness preached to you in His name? being justified by faith, have you peace with God? You say perhaps, Well, I thought I had all that; but the priest has told me that in regeneration all that can be truly called sin is taken away; and that I am so renewed that I am innocent, pure, and harmless. But I do not find it so. Do what I will, I do not find it so. I find a constant conflict with the flesh. And it is no better. I hate it, my old very self more and more. If I go into a monastery it is still there. If I fast, and flog my back until the blood runs down, I have still an evil nature. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” If I keep all the fasts and feasts of the church, my old self is still the same. I lose all confidence. How can any man be sure he is saved, and has eternal life? Ah, how many are thus plunged into despair!
Now does not the scripture distinctly recognize that, as surely as you are born of God, and have the Spirit, so surely the flesh will lust against the Spirit? Knowing the truth of all this, you also know the source of power, yes, have it, even the Holy Ghost dwelling in you; and thus you have the victory. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). Every believer finds the sinful flesh still in him, but “sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but grace.” Truly soul-sustaining truth of God!
According to holy scripture then, a man passes from death unto life by the Holy Ghost applying the word! according to High Church and Rome, by a priest applying water in baptism. But then if this very foundation of baptismal regeneration be false and unscriptural; what becomes of confirmation? What does the bishop confirm? Well, if it is a falsehood, a lie, he can only confirm a lie.
Oh, sad truth—deceiving and being deceived! Think of the millions of people thus deceived. And shall we make no effort to reach them
Oh, ye High Church parents, will you thus deceive your children? Dare you say your baptized children are innocent, pure, and harmless; all sin taken away by baptism? Thus, no need for them to hear the word and live. You know they have the same sinful nature that other children have; how soon it is manifested! You know your own nature was not made pure in baptism. Say no longer, I will give all honor to the priest that hath washed me from my sins in the water of baptism. Oh, that you could say, “Unto him that loveth us and hath cleansed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). Can you say that—the language of every child of God on earth? Christ or the priest, light or darkness. Joy in God, or gloomy despair! Oh, escape for your life; search the scriptures; study the scriptures. God speaks to you in His word. Need you, will you, doubt it? Think of His love in giving His Son to die for our sins. Oh, cease from man and come to Jesus. He says, “Come unto me and I will give you rest.” Satan may whisper, “It is enough; you have been baptized. You are pure, your sins are washed away by the priest in water; you are a child of God; you are a member of Christ; and the bishop has confirmed all this, just as I would have it. You do not need to be born again by the word of God; you do not need to come to Jesus, you do not need to hear His word; you do not need to believe God; or care to read what He says; you do not need to pass from death to life that way. It is enough for you to believe the priest, and do as he bids you. But the word of God you must not trust; it killeth.”
Reader, will you thus listen to and believe the devil? You must either distrust God, and believe the devil, or, believing God, flee from all the lies of Satan. There can be no mistake about this, it is either the priest, with his sacrament of baptism, or the blood of Jesus, God’s own Son, that cleanseth from sins. The Council of Trent teaches the one; the word of God declares the other.
In my inmost soul, with deepest reverence, I receive the testimony of the word of God. On this I trust for eternity. And as surely as Jesus is the Son of God, so surely all those who believe Him have passed from death unto life. It came to pass that whosoever looked at the brazen serpent lived. And Jesus says, “He that believeth on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE” (John 6:47). One thing more and I close. It is most important to notice that this new life is not intended to be given to us, and still leave us the slaves of lust and iniquities. The blessed Savior Jesus Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14). We were once the slaves of lust, living in all evil; but “after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” Mark, this is entirely of God by the Holy Ghost, not of ourselves. The Holy Ghost not only gives us a new life, but we are brought into a new generation, a regeneration. This word only occurs once besides this place, in the New Testament, and it is there used in this sense of an entirely new state (Matt. 19:28). But then this new nature is holy. And thus the cleansing of a laver, or bath, is most expressive. Not only does the Holy Ghost communicate this divine life in regeneration, but He is shed abroad abundantly. Thus by the Holy Ghost, the man who was a slave to sin becomes not only possessed of a new nature, but in the development of that new holy nature, a new creature in holiness. And being justified by His grace—God’s own free grace and goodness through Jesus Christ—he is to be careful to maintain good works. And though the flesh is still there, yet by the power of the Spirit, and ever occupied with Christ, he becomes practically a changed man in thoughts, affections, and in all his ways. It is not the old nature changed, but the Spirit giving power to the new to overcome and walk in holiness of life; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord. We who were enemies by wicked works “hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh THROUGH DEATH [not the water of baptism the type of it] to present you holy and unblameable, and unreprovable in his sight” (Col. 1:22). Let not the Ritualist lay aside this tract, and say, what have we to do with the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as taught by the church of Rome? Well, do you know that you hold this soul-destroying error? Are you not teaching thousands of children in this land, to believe this falsehood? It is not found in scripture; it is found in Rome. Yes, Rome is its source; and therefore we test it as found there by the word of God. In view of all this apostasy, the apostle says, “I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). In our next we hope to examine justification as taught in the scriptures compared with the Council of Trent.
Plain Words to Ritualists on Their Way to Rome No. 3
Justification—The Council of Trent Tested by the Word of God
We have in tract No. 1, described our visit to the Dark Chamber of Idolatry in Cambridge of the “Holy Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament,” and the popish books used there by its members. It is remarkable we found no Bible there, but only books of the full Romish stamp. In tract, No. 2, we went at once to the fountain-head of Ritualism, the doctrines of Rome as taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent. In that tract we examined the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration,” this being declared by Rome to be the instrumental cause of “justification” (p. 34). We found the decrees of the Council on Baptismal Regeneration utter confusion, and in direct contradiction of the word of God. And to every Ritualist we say, Remember, these are the doctrines of that church to which you are doing your utmost to lead all you can influence.
We will now examine the decree of the Council of Trent on Justification, and test it by the word of God (Ch. 7, p. 33). It admits indeed that the meritorious cause of justification is “His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the great charity wherewith He loved us, merited justification for us, by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross, and for us made satisfaction unto God the Father.” But then it goes on to say, that the “instrumental cause, moreover, is the Sacrament of Baptism; and that, Lastly, the sole formal cause is the justice of God; not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He maketh us just, that to wit, with which we, being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed but are truly called, and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost divides to every man severally as He will, and according to each one’s proper disposition and cooperation.” We suppose the Council allows us to turn to the scriptures to examine these statements; otherwise, why do they give us so many scriptures as footnotes for proof? Here we would notice that these references to scripture are most deceptive. In this way, passages or texts are constantly quoted, that have no connection with the subject whatever: so much so, that these Fathers must have been in the greatest ignorance of the purpose and scope of scripture. For instance, in this very quotation above, they refer to Eph. 4:23, only they also misquote it as usual. It is “and be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Douay). They say “are renewed in the spirit of our mind.” The text is the aim of a Christian in his life (one who has been justified). The other makes it a state because of which if you have it God can justify you. But the fact is, this text refers to the Ephesians who were justified and had redemption through the blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins (as in ch. 2 “BY GRACE YE ARE SAVED”); so that to quote ch. 4:23 for justification is a perversion of scripture.
It is a mistake something like this: A nobleman takes a poor boy, gives him a large estate, and places him in full possession. Then he informs him that he must conduct himself in a manner becoming his position, and wear clothes &c., according to his new rank. “Ah,” says a third party, “your new manners and clothes are the sole formal cause of the nobleman’s gift of the estate.” What a blunder! This is the exact mistake of the Fathers.
Will you read this epistle to the Ephesian Christians? God had taken them from the lowest depths of sin, and given them the highest estate in the heavens, Jesus Christ the Lord taking possession as their head, and they blest with Him in the heavenlies. “Now,” says the Holy Ghost, “let your manners and clothing become your high calling.” What a blunder to say this is the sole cause of their justification!
Now let us take the very next scripture: 1 Cor. 12:11 is misquoted as scripture to prove that justice, or righteousness, is within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost divides to every man severally as He will, &c.
Now let us turn and examine this passage. The scripture, thus wrested, is on a totally different subject—the gifts of Christ as used by the Spirit for the edification of the body of Christ. But this consists of all Christians. “The church of God that is at Corinth, to them that ARE sanctified in Christ Jesus. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:2, 30). What then has the manifestation of the Spirit, or the distribution of the gifts in the church, to do with the question of justification? Clearly nothing whatever. It is simply a blind quotation, leading the poor Romanists into uncertainty and perplexity. This very chapter shows the constitution of the church of God; while 1 Cor. 14 also describes those gifts in exercise. 1 Cor. 13 shows that, whatever gifts or knowledge, if there be not love or charity, all is vain. But they are for the edification of the body of Christ.
And mark the meaning of the apostle in that often misquoted text, the last verse. “And now there remain, faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greater of these is charity.” Charity is the greatest: but for what? The apostle is speaking of ministry and edification; not a thought in these three chapters about justification or salvation. He begins that as a new subject in 1 Cor. 15.
The Fathers, on the contrary, wrest this text from its plain meaning, and quote it as their great text for justification. They tell us faith without hope and charity cannot bestow life everlasting. Of course it cannot, if for that purpose charity is greater than faith. What does this blunder involve? Why this—that my love or charity is greater than Christ’s work. I stand before God for justification. Faith is one hand, that rests on the person and work of Christ. Charity is the other hand, that rests on myself—my love, my charity! And in this sense the Council tells me, greater is my love than Christ’s work for me on the cross. Soul-destroying delusion! Quite true in the scriptural sense, that I might have all faith and knowledge to remove mountains of difficulty in this tract; but if there is not charity, real love to these deluded Ritualists, the tract will not be worth a straw. Oh, for more of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, and the love of Christ flowing out in all our preachings and writings! But, remember, this has nothing to do with the question of justification. I am not aware of a single instance where a Romanist has quoted this text intelligently, according to its context.
One would have thought that every person who ever read the word of God must know that faith is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). The Fathers however treat this as a mistake. The anxious soul or catechumen begs this faith of the church. “Whence also do they straightway hear that word of Christ: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (p. 34). This is surely one of two things, using the word of God either ignorantly or craftily. Little children had been brought unto Christ, and He had announced that new and startling fact, that “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” A little child receives a gift and does nothing for it. This was the very opposite of the ministry of the law, yet most true, as explained by the Holy Ghost after redemption was accomplished, and Christ was risen from the dead. Eternal life is now the gift of God to those who, like a little child, do nothing for it: otherwise it would not be a gift. After the announcement of this new fact, a certain ruler puts a question, which lies at the root of this announcement. He asks, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” And the Lord at once tests him on his own ground, as under law. And mark He does not apply the law as to his duty to God, but the lowest test—duty to his neighbor. He says, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” “Which?” says the ruler. “Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; honor thy father and mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Well, the young man declares he has kept all these; and evidently he thinks so. But if so, where is grace? Where the Christ-announced doctrine of the little child? Oh, mark the divine wisdom of Christ! He takes the very last—“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and only applies this to the heart of a sincere Jew, under the administration of the law. Just, and holy, and good in itself, but the ministration of it to this young man is found to be death. He says, as it were, “You have property; the poor, whom you say you love as yourself, need that property; sell it and give to the poor.” Ah, he failed at once, not only to his neighbor, but in departing from God speaking to him in love. And thus was the truth not overthrown, but established; that the kingdom of God must be received as by a little child, and not a commandment-doing man. Was it not very crafty of the Fathers to misapply such a text as this? Surely they ought to have known that “if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). And “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. 3:21). This is a long digression; but as these are texts most relied on for the doctrine of Rome, it is of all importance fairly to examine their contexts. After this is done, you will find it difficult to believe that the Council were so ignorant of the just meaning and use of scriptures. One can only compare them to a number of men blindfolded, seeking a certain place, but uncertain as to whether they are on the right road, and therefore catching at anything in the dark. I ask every Ritualist or Romanist, Is it not so? Are you not utterly uncertain whether you have eternal life or not? and whether you are on the road that will surely end in glory, or not? Or whether you are, after all, in your sins, or justified from them? My fellow-believer, if you have got into the wrong road, if you are blindfolded, following the blind guides, let me lead you to the scriptures that were written “that ye may know that ye have eternal life.”
Let us then look at the subject of “justification,” not as a matter of controversy, but one of eternal importance. If there are only two roads, one leading to endless perdition, the other to endless bliss, in the unclouded presence of God, is it of no importance on which of the roads you are found? There are only two principles of justification, or righteousness—that of faith, or that of works -of God or of man. Is it a matter of indifference which? The one is what man is to God, and what he can do for God, righteousness in man before God—perfect consistency before God, meeting all the claims of God. This had been fairly tested in the Jews for fifteen centuries. And, as we have seen in that amiable ruler, he could not bear the test of a single commandment.
Let it be distinctly understood the Council of Trent takes one of these roads, and defends one of these principles—the one we have been describing—that which has to do with what man is to God. Man by baptism makes his fellow man pure, immaculate, and harmless! This is his best robe, and this must be kept spotless by keeping the commandments. The whole principle is what man is, and what he must do. The Jew was brought into that position by circumcision; the Romanist and Ritualist by baptism: but the principle is precisely the same; it is what man is to God. And while the Council quotes texts which have no reference to the subject, they almost entirely overlook the scriptures which speak explicitly on the subject.
Is it not remarkable that the Epistle sent to Rome should be occupied, say eight chapters at least, with this very subject—the justification of the sinner—and yet the Council do not seem to have known this? If they had read this Epistle, they certainly took great pains to contradict it. How is this? God gives the church at Rome a full inspired explanation of justification, and the Council of Trent takes no notice of it, but invents a doctrine of justification, the very opposite to that of the gospel, as set forth in Rom. 1-8.
With the scripture it is what God is to man in the death and resurrection of Christ. With the Council it is what man is to God, made righteous by baptism. If of faith, it is what God is; if of works, it is what man is—the righteousness of God, or the righteousness of man, that is the question. The Council first, in baptism, forgives the sins of an infant, never committed. But if the baptized man should commit sins after baptism, he does not know what to do with them. They see God cannot possibly justify sins; and yet the baptized, who, as they pretend, are by that sacrament made innocent, pure, immaculate, and harmless, how are they then to be justified if they sin? Clearly Rome cannot say. And they do sin. And thus there is no justification for them worth a straw. Having been justified, have they peace with God? No, instead of this, ages of untold torments in purgatory. Purgatory declares Rome’s doctrine of justification utterly worthless. It were all well, if baptism did make them pure and innocent, and everything truly sin washed away, and then the baptized kept the commandments without spot. If we were thus righteous, then certainly God must justify righteousness.
Is there such a thought in scripture, or in facts? Millions of us were baptized when infants. We bear the name of Christians. Is there one amongst these millions innocent and pure? Is there one that has not a sinful nature—a nature ever prone to sin against God? Do you not mourn over that sinful nature? And how terrible its fruits! Let us not then trust in a false justification. Oh, where shall we turn, to know with certainty that our sins are forgiven, and that we are justified from all things? Let us turn to the scriptures; there alone shall we find certainty for our souls.
Let us read the Epistle to the Romans, as God speaking to us on this very subject. Here then we have the two principles of righteousness fully revealed. The righteousness of God is the principal subject of the glad tidings: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith or on the principle of faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17). The propitiation of Christ is set forth of God “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). The Council denies this point blank: “The sole formal cause is the justice of God; not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He maketh us just” (p. 34). Thus the Council distinctly denies that which is specially revealed in the gospel—the righteousness of God—that by which He Himself is just in justifying the believer. Nothing could be more opposed than the Council of Trent and the word of God. The Council maintains the righteousness of man: what he is, and what he does. The scripture reveals the righteousness of God: how He is righteous in justifying the sinner who believes on Him. First, however, scripture fully examines the question of the righteousness of man. This was needed, as the Jew then (like the Romanist now) went about to establish his own righteousness, refusing to submit to the righteousness of God (Rom. 10). In Rom. 1 then God examines the heathen world, and, instead of righteousness, He finds all unrighteousness and wickedness—the most debasing wickedness. The very judges who condemned the fearful iniquity were no better, but did the same things. We know history everywhere corroborates the statement of this scripture. But what of the chosen nation, with all its privileges, circumcision, and the oracles of God? Are not they found righteous? No, not one! all are proved under sin. Every mouth is stopped, and all the world guilty before God. Read the description God gives of them (Rom. 3:9-19). On the principle then of what man is to God, when even tested for centuries, no righteousness is to be found: all are guilty, all have sinned. Considering their privileges, the Jews were worse than the Gentiles, and showed more intense hatred to God, when Christ came on earth.
And may we not ask, What is the judgment of God on baptized Christendom? Let anyone read the history, say of Baronius, the Romanist. Could there be worse wickedness than this? And could man show more intense hatred against God, than has been shown, by Rome, in the murder of the saints of God? If, then, considering their privileges, the Jews were worse than the heathen; may we not say that baptized Christendom, while maintaining the righteousness of man on the principle of works, has been more wicked than both put together? and more, let the reader, or the writer of this paper be brought into the all-searching presence of God: ah, it is not then how bad the heathen were, or how bad the Jews, or how bad the professing church has been; but how bad, how vile, am I? What a world of iniquity is in my own heart! If I look back, oh, what cause for self-abhorrence! Tell me, reader, is it not so? Where then is righteousness of man? Is it not, as God says, There is none on the principle of what man is to God? “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Baptism or circumcision, law of Moses or law of church so called, on this principle of law of what man is, or can do for God, all are sinners and righteousness there is none. It is quite true, that on this ground, no man can know that he is justified. All are guilty, under condemnation and death.
BUT NOW THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (the very thing denied by the Council; the very thing manifested in the scripture, witnessed by law, and prophets), “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.” Yes, that by which He Himself is just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. What is that by which God is righteous in justifying us? Do the scriptures, like the Council, say it is righteousness in us, each one according to his measure? No such thing. No, it is exclusively what He has done, “Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” And not only is it so with believers in the past, before He died, but that same propitiation on the cross is “To declare, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:20-26). Thus the scripture points us to the death of Jesus, the propitiation for our sins, as that by which God is just in justifying us. So it was the bitten Israelite, owning his sins, looked upon the brazen serpent lifted up. “Even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.” They were not told to look within for healing from the dreadful bite, but to look without, even at the brazen serpent lifted up, and all that looked lived. Do the bidding of Rome, look for righteousness within, and death is your certain portion. God give you faith to look at Jesus on the cross, for all that look shall live. Now what do I see there? By faith I see the Son of God bruised for my iniquities; taking my place; the Just for the unjust, to bring me to God; bearing my sins in His own body on the tree. Oh precious, infinite sacrifice; that forever puts away sins! Oh precious Substitute bearing Thy people’s sins! Jehovah laid on Thee the iniquities of us all. In our stead it pleased Jehovah to bruise Thee. Thy love to me! thy death for me. Deep was the hatred of man, and dreadful Thy sufferings from his hands, smitten, buffeted, spit upon, mocked, scourged, nailed, pierced. But ah, my Lord, what was all this to that deeper suffering —the horror, the darkness, when Thy soul was made an offering for sin; forsaken of God and all for me, for me? Oh, watch Him there, and now hear that last cry, “It is finished; and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” Oh, my soul, God sets this before thee, as that by which He is just in justifying thee. That holy body cold in death was taken from the cross, and buried according to the scriptures. He came to bear my sins, to glorify God on that cross. Did He fail? Is He still in the grave? “If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.” Let us look carefully at two facts, the two facts overlooked by Rome; but the very facts of our justification. They are very clearly stated thus. Yes, righteousness is reckoned to us believing God about these two facts, “If we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from among the dead, who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:24). Here is a justification suited to lost, helpless, guilty sinners. All is of God, who delivered Him to bear our sins on the cross. And there He glorified God; there God’s love to the sinner and hatred to sin was proved to the utmost. But if my Substitute glorified God in His atoning death for my sins, then must not God in righteousness raise my Substitute from among the dead, and give Him glory? This is exactly what God did: He raised Jesus our Substitute from the dead for the very purpose of our justification.
At present it is the question of justification from sins, not sin; that we will look at afterward. How is God righteous in justifying us from our sins? He sets before us the atoning death of Jesus our Substitute, and He says we are justified by His blood (Rom. 5:9). But how are we to know that we are justified from our sins which Jesus our Substitute bore on the cross? How? why Jesus was raised from the dead for this very purpose. Who raised Him? God the Justifier. Thus God reveals to my soul how He Himself is righteous in justifying me. How can I doubt Him? But then believing Him I am accounted righteous, that is to say, I am justified, and “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Would it be righteous to reckon the person guilty when the Substitute has put away that guilt? Would it be just to charge a debt when a bondsman has paid it? The resurrection of Jesus our bondsman is the believer’s everlasting discharge from sins. The scripture asks, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”
All this is indeed opposed to Rome, which directs the soul to innocence and purity by baptism, to receiving justice within us, and keeping the commandments of God and the church; which sees nothing beyond what man is and can do for God. On the other hand, the scriptures reveal what God is to us in perfect righteousness; what He has done in the gift of His Son, in the atoning death of Jesus for us, raised from the dead for our justification; we justified by His blood, He our Justifier. Are you, my reader, with the Jews, the Ritualist and the Romanist, going about to establish thus a righteousness of your own, or have you submitted to the righteousness of God?
If it be a question of looking within, could any person say there is now nothing to condemn? But since God laid all our sins on Jesus, it is most true that “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” First then God is righteous, He Himself is just as revealed in the propitiation, or mercy-seat. Rome only leads you unto hope, trusting that God will be propitious for Christ’s sake. This is to deny that Christ has come in the flesh. The type of the great day of atonement has surely been fulfilled. The blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Through that blood God now freely forgives and is just in justifying. And this free forgiveness is presented to all. God is righteous, consistent with all His attributes. We cannot hope He will be propitious. Freely He meets the sinner at that mercy-seat, and there without money and without price freely forgives. Guilty sinner, God has set forth that mercy-seat; His righteousness is there declared. Sin has been punished, and judged to the utmost. Therefore the sinner that meets God at that mercy-seat, in righteousness is freely forgiven.
Secondly, what is the fact as to those who do receive the free mercy of God? They are those who believe God, who in self-abhorrence before God own they are lost guilty sinners, who believe (not that God will be propitious, but) that He has sent His Son, that He has been offered on the cross, the propitiation for sins. They believe the proclamation of God from that mercy-seat. “Be it known therefore to you, men and brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you, from all the things from the which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. In him every one that believeth is JUSTIFIED” (Acts 13:38, Rhemish). I say what is the fact as to those who believe God? May we conclude that such a man is justified, or may he only hope to be? The scripture says, “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28, Rhemish). Oh, what a blessed fact, “BEING JUSTIFIED freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24). Pursue this fact a little farther, that all who believe ARE justified. You will find in chapter 4. Abraham and David believed God, and faith was accounted unto them for righteousness. Believing God they were accounted righteous. If this was true of them, before Christ died, is it not also true of the believer now since the death of Jesus? Yes, but mark, now I have faith, believing God, it is not merely propitiation but actual substitution. Thus righteousness is reckoned to us, we are as believers accounted righteous, “If we believe in him who raised up Jesus Christ OUR Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for OUR sins, and rose again for our justification” (Rom. 4:24, Rhemish). Therefore being—not hoping to be, but—“Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through OUR Lord Jesus Christ.” The righteousness of God, and the sinner’s need, are both met on the cross. If you will compare the two goats in Lev. 16, you will find the one to be Jehovah’s, and sets forth propitiation, the blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Thus the judgment throne becomes the mercy-seat. But the other goat, the people’s, shows in type substitution—all the sins of the people actually laid on, or transferred to, the head of the goat. So this scripture presents Jesus as the believer’s Substitute delivered for our offenses. What a fact all my sins transferred to Jesus on the cross! My blessed loving Substitute taking the whole guilt of my sins, bearing their full penalty! Deep reality! Oh, believer, our Substitute raised from the dead for our justification! And He, our representative, so justified from our sins, that He is seated in the unclouded glory of God. Yes, the glory of God shines in the face of the very One who once bore our sins and curse on the cross. Ah, such is the eternal efficacy of His death, that God says of all believers “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” Now souls believing God, see the end of their sins in the death of their Substitute. The certainty of this is seen by the resurrection of that Substitute from among the dead. If God has raised Him from the dead for our justification, then the risen Christ is the full everlasting discharge from all our sins. “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).
It is very striking that in all the ramblings of unbelief, the Fathers never once name this all-important cardinal fact that God has raised up, from among the dead, the Lord Jesus for our justification. Just like some learned person trying to show how a man is discharged from his debts when paid by another, but forgets the receipts; or like the case of two manufacturers, reckoning the cost of a piece of cloth, but forgetting the wool, the principal thing. So these Fathers forgot, or never knew, the principal evidence of the believer’s justification.
This is not the worst. Does not God in His word, in the passages above, distinctly tell the believer that he is justified—that he has peace with Him? Does He not point to the risen Christ as the proof of it? These ignorant Fathers have the daring wickedness to brand as vain confidence the faith that believes God (p. 35). Jesus declares that he that heareth His word, and believeth God that sent Him, HATH life everlasting, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life. God declares that through Jesus is preached the forgiveness of sins, and all that believe ARE justified from all things. I believe Jesus, I believe God. God is true; and as surely as God speaks truth, I believing have eternal life; I am justified; and he that does not believe God is judged already. And yet the Council tells us this confidence is remote from all piety! Instead of this “joy in God,” they would give us to “have fear and apprehension concerning His own grace; inasmuch as no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to mistake, that he has obtained the grace of God.”
The scriptures point me to the cross, the expression of the grace of God to me. The Fathers point me to my own grace, and tell me to have fear and apprehension. Here we have the result of the two systems clearly brought out. The Holy Ghost by the scriptures gives the certainty of faith. Every believer, in the church of God as found in scripture, had this certainty. No member of the church of Rome dare enjoy this certainty on pain of anathema. God sets before the believer the Lord Jesus Christ as his Substitute, delivered for his offenses and raised again for his justification. By this, God is righteous in Himself in accounting the believer righteous before Him in his Substitute. So that confessing our sins, God is, yea must be, faithful to His Son—must be just in forgiving us our sins, and in cleansing us from all unrighteousness. This is the simple question. Once my sins were charged against my Substitute, God entered into judgment on Him, Jesus bearing them on the cross. All my sins were transferred to Him. In divine love He took the entire responsibility. Is there one sin yet to be charged against Him? Who shall lay that charge? On one side I have God the Justifier; who is on the other side to charge or to condemn? And mark, it is not concerning my own grace. It is Christ that died, yes, rather that is risen again. All Fathers, popes, and Councils cannot rob my soul of this divine certainty of faith. If it be myself, God entering into judgment with me for my sins, there is not a shadow of a hope. I must be condemned; but the full wrath and judgment of God passed over the soul of Jesus, my Substitute, on the cross. That work is accomplished. “It is finished,” never to be repeated. You say, How do you know? Because God, who laid my sins on Jesus, has raised Him from the dead without them. Is it vain confidence then, to say with the beloved John, “Unto him that loveth us, and hath washed us from our sins in his own blood?” Oh, begone, dark unbelief of Rome! It is pleasing to God that we rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
If any man could have stood on the ground of what he was to God, the young Jew of Tarsus was the man. He says, “touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless.” Does he trust in this, and the merits of Christ as a make-weight? No, he utterly rejects the whole ground and principle of what he was to God. He says he “counted them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:8, 2). Thus he gives up as dung the whole basis that the Council seeks to establish, and accepts that which the Council repudiates—the righteousness of God—that by which He Himself is righteous in justifying us from all sins.
There is much more in this scripture; but we must now turn to the second part of the subject of justification—the question not of sins but of sin. We have already seen how God has justified the believer from sins, and that by which He is righteous in thus justifying, and how the believer is brought into the enjoyment of peace with God as to his sins. All this forms the subject of Romans to ch. 5:11. From ch. 5:12, the apostle treats of sin. We pointed out in tract number 2, that the Council teaches that all that which has the true and proper nature of sin is taken away by baptism. Surely this is too monstrous for any man to entertain with the history of baptized Christendom before him. But what saith the scripture on this question of sin—the root? Rom. 5:12 to the end of ch. 8 is the answer, Sin entered by Adam, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men. The whole race is involved—not only transgression in the case of Adam and the Jews to whom God gave the law, but, for so long a period when there was no formal law, death proved that sin was there. But far and wide as the stream of sin abounded flowing from its fountain head, Adam, another stream much more abounds in grace and justification of life flowing from the obedient One, the other head, Christ. And where by the presence of the law, the offense did abound, grace did still much more abound: “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign, through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.” This is not our Adam nature improved or restored, but an entirely new head, Christ; not old life in Adam, but new resurrection life in Christ. True, we have lost all in Adam, but in Christ we have infinitely more than we lost. But you say, Is not that old sinful Adam nature still in the believer? Yes, indeed it is. Then how can he be justified as to that? Can God justify an evil nature? Certainly not; but He has judged it, as we read, “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin [or by a sacrifice for sin], condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Not only was He delivered as our Substitute to bear our sins, the Just for the unjust; but sin, the root of all sins, was also forever judged by His sacrifice for sin. As surely as He bore our iniquities, so also He was made sin. Thus sin was judged to the utmost that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Read carefully 2 Cor. 5:21.
This is very precious to a soul, knowing that not only his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, but that be, the sinner, is reckoned dead, crucified, judged with Christ. As we have seen, baptism is a wonderful type of this—dead and buried with Christ (Rom. 6), and also risen with Him (Col. 2). Now the scripture assures me of this completeness—justified from SINS by the blood of Jesus, justified in the sense of complete deliverance from SIN, by being dead and risen with Christ. Thus the scripture says, “Ye are complete in him” (Col. 2).
“No,” says the Council, “No such thing. Your justification in Christ is not complete, is not perfect.” Rome can never admit that the one sacrifice of Christ forever perfects. Stoutly does she deny this in face of these scriptures of truth. She says, (ch. 10, p. 36), “Having, therefore, been thus justified, &c., they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in the justice [or righteousness], received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified.” Then scriptures are mis-quoted in proof; such as Rev. 22:11, James 2:24: And this increase of justification the holy church begs when she prays, “Give us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.” Thus our observance of the commandments of God and the church, and an increase of faith, hope, and charity add something to the justification of the believer by the death and resurrection of Christ. Our works are of more value than His death. According to the Fathers we are not in a completely justified state as dead and risen with Christ. Our good works increase this state of justification. Universal has been the influence of this lie of Satan. “Yea, hath God said you are completely justified by Christ?” Just as he insinuated a doubt in the garden, so has he insinuated doubts, until at last this Council plainly declares against complete justification in Christ, and looks at the works of man to complete the work of Christ. Had they ever read these words? “Christ is become of no effect unto you; whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 4:4). Now if God’s righteousness is revealed and set forth in the one infinite sacrifice or propitiation of Christ, that very thing by which He is righteous in Himself in justifying us; and if the Fathers deny that it is infinite, by teaching that our works and observing the commandments can increase it, or add to it, inasmuch as this infinite propitiation is the very foundation of the whole gospel to man, it follows that the Council denies the foundation of the gospel of God to lost sinners.
But then I grant this is not limited to Rome. Let me test every reader of these lines. How is it with your soul and God in this matter? We will look at keeping the commandments in its place shortly; but to keep close to the subject of justification before God, Do you accept the testimony of God simply and truly as to your own utterly lost guilty condition? Secondly, do you believe God laid your sins on Jesus, that He bore them on the cross? Surely our works have nothing to say to this. And do you believe the testimony of God in raising Jesus from among the dead for your very justification; just as you would believe a person giving you a receipt for a paid bill? Do you believe that your very nature as a child of Adam is sin; but that this and all that you are, as a child of Adam, has been judged in Jesus on the cross? That He died for your sins, that they are gone from the sight of God, to be remembered no more? And more, that you are reckoned dead with Christ, crucified with Him, risen with Him, and thus completely justified from sin? (Rom. 6).
How works could add to this is hard to say. But do you really believe the wondrous fact, that by faith in God, through Jesus Christ you are complete in Him without works at all, as justified even now, as complete as to your position in that risen Christ, as you will be when in the glory? Justified from sins and sin, and possessed of a justified life—the life of the risen Christ? And yet all this is simply the faith once delivered to the saints, alas long since almost lost. There can be no difference between the justification of the head and the members. “As he is, so are we in this world.” Being thus justified, we have the same peace in the unclouded presence of God, and with God according to all that He is, as our Substitute, Jesus Christ the Lord. But oh, how few enjoy this completeness in Christ! Do you, my reader? How common and how sad, to say as it were, We are barely saved by Christ, now we must increase our justification by good works! This is the inward feeling of thousands, who do not speak out their unbelief honestly like the Council of Trent. My judgment of the Council is that they were in complete ignorance of the true doctrine of justification—of that by which God is just, righteous in Himself, in justifying us. Had they known it, they never could have thus set it aside and groped in darkness after baptism, commandments, faith, hope, charity, anything but what it is—the accomplished work of Christ, God’s righteousness submitted to by faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be taken away.
I would ask every Ritualist and Romanist, Is not this a most serious error, to teach that our good works can add to the value of the atoning work of Christ for an increase of our justification? Was it not the very heresy deceivers sought to introduce into the assemblies of Galatia? No, was it not the very error for which Paul had to withstand Peter? There were Gentile believers justified by Christ alone through faith. There were Jewish believers not only justified by Christ, but also they observed the law. Peter dissembled, as though the latter were more justified than the former. This could not be without making Christ the minister of sin, and Paul withstood him to the face. Read Gal. 1; 2, and see if this is not so. Now the Council teaches the very same thing. You may be justified by faith in Christ, but still more justified by works of law. This is that different gospel which is not another, for there is really none other gospel or good news to a lost sinner, but the righteousness of God as revealed in the accomplished work of Christ; the believer in which is Justified freely, for Christ’s sake. But be it marked, the Council teaches that other gospel, in direct contrast to the gospel of Paul, concerning which he says, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).
The true gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ, that by which God is righteous in justifying us from all things. The false gospel is that by which we pretend that God has made us just in ourselves by baptism, and our keeping the commandments of God and the church. This other false gospel is the distinct teaching of the Council of Trent. The true gospel is what God is to us in Christ; the false is what we are to God by sacraments and works.
The two men in the temple exactly illustrate these two principles. The one thanked God that He had made him righteous by good works in himself. The other had nothing but sin to bring and confess to God; and he needed God to be propitious to him a sinner. The Council takes the exact ground of the Pharisee. The believer in the word of God takes the ground of the publican; only he has not now to pray thus afar off, but to believe that God has met all his need in the propitiation of Christ. And it is the Son of God that says, “I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other” (Luke 18:13). As surely then as God has spoken the truth to us in His word, so surely has the Council of Trent brought to one hundred and eighty millions of people the most false soul-destroying error. And equally certain is it, that more than two thousand six hundred clergymen are leading giddy thoughtless England to the darkness of Rome.
Some unacquainted with scripture might be misled by the scriptures quoted by the Council in defense of justification by works; by which, and the grace of Christ in them, as they say, “we must needs believe that to be justified nothing farther is wanting, but that they be accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and truly to have merited eternal life to be obtained also in its due time” (p. 41), with very, very much of the same sad sort. Now let a person be placed on such ground as this. He must keep the holy precepts of the word of God, so as to fully satisfy the divine law, truly thus to merit eternal life.
In contrast with all this, the Lord Jesus assures our hearts, the moment we believe that we have eternal life. “Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me HATH life everlasting” (John 6:47, Rhemish). The Council tells us to keep all these commandments diligently, in order that we may be justified, and still more justified. On the contrary, all the precepts of the inspired Epistles are addressed to those who are justified. “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs, according to hope of life everlasting;” and to those who do believe God and are justified, “That they which believe in God be careful to excel in good works” (Titus 3:7, 8, Douay). And let it be distinctly understood, that the gospel, applied by the power of God to such as even never heard it before, gives, when believed, the immediate certainty of justification, without one question as to works first. See the apostle’s first proclamation of the gospel at Antioch in Pisidia. “Be it known therefore to you, men brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is preached to you, from all the things from the which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. In him every one that believeth IS JUSTIFIED” (Acts 13:38, 39, Rhemish). Let me beg of every sincere Romanist to ponder this well. Oh, return to the word of God. Do not put that justification at the end which God puts at the beginning. No, instead of this immediate justification from all things on the certainty of the very word of God, do you not make justification utterly impossible? Oh, where is the man that has satisfied the claims of the divine law? Where but that Blessed One at God’s right hand? And if you could satisfy the demands of a holy God, where would be the need of the death and resurrection of Christ?
Test these teachings of vain men by the word of God, and you will find them utterly false. Can anything be more certain than the above statements of the word of God that he that believeth is justified? God says it. I believe God, and God says I am justified. The Council says, If I assuredly believe for certain and without any hesitation that I am justified and my sins forgiven, I am accursed. (See Canons 12, 13, 14.) Shall I believe God, or man? Which is it with you, my reader? Certainly the scriptures teach us that good works are the fruits and signs before the world of justification before God by faith. But if I believe this, the Council will again curse me. (Canon 29)
Here are thirty-three canons and curses: dreadful work would it be to go through these. Truth there is mixed up with it; but as a system of doctrine, nothing could be more opposed to the glad tidings of God. As Satan once led the world, its priests and Pharisees, to reject and kill the Prince of life; so now behold him leading that vast gathering of priests, bishops, and Ritualists, to reject the gospel and openly set aside the authority of the word of God. “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 10:3). The sole object of the Council was to establish their own righteousness, so that by their own righteousness God might be just in justifying them. This is the plain principle; be it by baptism, sacraments, or keeping of commandments, they entirely set aside the great truth of the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD. Christ in the glory of His person, and the everlasting value of His work, His death, and resurrection, is that by which God is righteous, just in Himself in justifying us. Can anything please Satan more than thus to set aside Christ, and thus to exalt poor sinful man?
And now, my reader, will you, with the Bible in your hands, join the ranks of these Confraternities? Will you deliberately and wickedly refuse to hear God speaking in the Son? Will you sin against the Holy Ghost, and refuse to hear Him in the inspired epistles speaking of Christ as the end of the law for righteousness? Will you reject the free pardon of sins proclaimed to you through Jesus Christ? Dare you deny the truth of God that all who believe ARE justified from all things? True, you might not believe if all the waters of the Atlantic had been rolled over you in baptism; but “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin.” Oh, will you turn from that precious blood? from the very testimony of God? From God Himself, the Justifier, to vain presumptuous man? Can God who freely gave His beloved Son possibly deceive you? Will you say, I will not believe Him, I will not read what He says to me in the word; unless the priest says it is so? Would a child treat His father thus? would he say I will not believe what my father says, unless the servants say it is true? Will you exalt the Council, or the priest above God? Do you honestly say I will not hear God, I will only hear man?
Oh turn to the scriptures and hear God speaking to your soul. You must either know Him now as Justifier; or a day is fast approaching when you must know Him as Judge. Then every sin must be brought to light. Oh, what will sacraments and idolatry do for you in that day? Will you say in that day I preferred my own way, my own righteousness to the great and free salvation of God? How blest every child of God! “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Romanist, or Ritualist can never say so. The most he can have is, not peace, but an armistice. With Him the great question of peace will not be settled until the assembled congress, before the great white throne of judgment. Then it will be forever too late. If we stand before the Judge to be judged for our sins, then shall no flesh living be justified. One thing is clear, God cannot be both my Justifier and my Judge. He was both to my holy Substitute, in whom I have been judged, and now can only be justified. The infinite claims of my holy Substitute demand my everlasting justification. Oh, blessed God, Thy righteousness denies the possibility of judging me for the sins, which have been laid on Jesus; on Him, once judged, never can they be judged again. I bow my head, and worship in the unclouded peace with Thee, my holy, holy, holy God. Thy majesty, righteousness, and grace, Thine every attribute, in perfect harmony. And I have peace, peace with Thee. Thou, my precious Jesus hast made peace by Thy blood, Thou art that peace to me. Gone, gone every barrier to Thine everlasting love: now to serve Thee be my only delight.
Oh, fellow believer, wide open is the way into the holiest! The fatted calf is killed; all things are ready. The Father says, “let us eat, and be merry.” The veil is rent in twain. The precious blood gives boldness. Satan is leading men to stitch up that vail, to shut man outside again in beggarly ritualism, in gloomy misery, afar off from God, with priests between.
What a moment, a nation going back from the profession of Christianity to papal idolatry! And shall we look on with supine indifference? How is it that Christians can remain silent, yes, even linked and thus identified with all this grievous insult to God, and denial of His truth? “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Ritualism is a vast effort of Satan to extinguish the light of the gospel. But “Christ shall give thee light.” Let us have faith in God. Greater is He that is for us than all they that be against us. And if God be for us, who are they that are against us?
The prayers of all Christians are asked for the blessing of God on these tracts.
The Mass, and the Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Holy Communion Examined by Scripture
In this short paper, it is presumed that all who bear the name of Christian are agreed that there is no way of approach to God but by a propitiatory sacrifice—no possibility of pardon and justification by any other means than by faith in that propitiation—the substitution of all believers. Now the Romanists claim that in the Mass they have a true expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.
We propose, then, first, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, to examine—though it must be briefly in a short paper—what is a sacrifice for sins, as set forth in scripture? and, secondly, does the Mass answer to that sacrifice, or is it a total mistake, and in every particular contrary to scripture?
Woe be to us if the Mass is God’s appointed sacrifice for our sins, and we despise and reject it. Let us, then, approach this subject in the fear of the Lord, and not in the spirit of mere party controversy.
That statement in Heb. 9:22, “and without shedding of blood is no remission,” is a truth that is found shadowed in all the types and offerings of old.
The offering of Cain was a bloodless one. He did not understand or recognize what sin was, or the need of the death of a substitute. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. In Cain’s there was only offering—no suffering of the death of a substitute. “By faith Abel offered to God a sacrifice exceeding that of Cain,” &c. It exceeded Cain’s, as his was only an offering, not a sacrifice at all. God could not accept such an offering without sacrifice. Abel’s was both an offering and also a sacrifice. There was actual death, shedding of blood. Abel’s was a true type of Christ. He not only offered Himself, but He endured the atoning death of the cross. But more of this in its place.
Examine each of the sacrifices of Genesis—Noah’s, Abraham’s, Isaac’s and Jacob’s. Do we not find the actual death of the victim—the shedding of blood? Now we see Israel in the cruel bondage of Egypt. God comes down in love to deliver them. Heavier tasks are given them, and they labor to make bricks without straw—like an awakened soul trying to keep the law without strength. Then sweetest promises are given them, then the most wonderful providential dealings, in sparing them from the plagues of Egypt; but still they are in bondage. The lamb must be offered, and the lamb must be slain. It is the blood. They were sinners, and there is no shelter or refuge from divine judgment but the shed and sprinkled blood of the lamb! Thus must Jesus not only offer Himself, but He must needs suffer (John 3). Is it not equally so in all the many offerings of the law? True, those repeated offerings could never take away sins (Heb. 10). But when they were brought to remembrance every year, on the day of atonement, the victim must be slain -it must die, its blood must be brought before God. Without shedding of blood there is no remission.
In Lev. 4 we find, if an Israelite sinned, there could be no forgiveness but by the death of a substitute. The blood must be shed, and be sprinkled seven times before the Lord. Without shedding of blood is no remission. In the case of that loathsome figure of sin—leprosy—the poor leper was brought to the priest for his cleansing. There must be death. Two birds had to be taken alive. One of the birds had to be killed, the other had to be dipped in its blood, and that blood sprinkled on the leper. He was then pronounced clean, and the living bird let loose. Jesus must die for our sins—yes, be made sin; and God has raised Him from the dead, declaring that all who believe are justified from all things (Acts 13:38, 39).
Yes, while the meat-offering and the incense set forth the adorable Person of the incarnate Son of God, Son of man, yet every sacrifice must be killed—its blood must be shed. So we find Jesus not only offered Himself, but He actually became a sacrifice for sins. This seems to have been overlooked by Roman Catholic writers. In John 12:26, 27, we see Jesus offering Himself. The sacrifice was before Him; none but He knew its tremendous character. He only knew how God had been dishonored by the creature’s sin. His soul was filled with trouble at the prospect, yet He says, “for this cause came I unto this hour.” Then He said, “Father, glorify thy name.” Wondrous love! yet this was not the sacrifice, it was the offering. So in the garden of Gethsemane, still offering Himself. What, then, was the atoning sacrifice? Hearken to these words: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” “Made sin for us.” “Being made a curse for us.” “Delivered for our iniquities.” “Wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.” “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” “For the transgression of my people was he stricken.” “He bore the sin of many.” These, and many other scriptures, show not only the offering of Jesus, but the true, solemn character of the atoning sacrifice for sins. And more, not only the shedding of His blood as true expiation for sins, so as to glorify God, but the blessed truth that He died the Substitute of His people. By that death of the cross God is glorified, and all the believer’s sins have been borne by the Substitute. This is the scriptural ground of peace with God, for God “raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 4; 5). There is also another question that the Roman Catholic writers seem to have overlooked—that all the sins of believers were atoned for by this one sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Clearly all our sins, from birth to falling asleep, or the coming of the Lord, were future then. This, then, is the question for every believer, Did that one infinite sacrifice, the atoning death of Jesus, make full expiation for all our sins; or, if we should sin again, do we need another expiatory sacrifice? This lies at the root of the whole question. Before, however, we carefully examine scripture as to this point, we would inquire what is the true character of expiation? The heathen had the thought that their gods were hateful and hating beings, that they required sacrifices, in order to avoid their gods’ hatred, or to reconcile them so that they might become favorable. We would ask our Roman Catholic readers if this is not something like their thought of God. Have you not thought that God hated you because of your sins, and that the many sacrifices which are constantly offered are to reconcile God to you, and make Him favorable unto you? A reconciled Father is common in theology. No such thought is in scripture. The infinite sacrifice of Christ is never thus spoken of. The least calm reflection will show that great numbers are totally mistaken as to this. Did not God so love the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son? Sin must be judged, or the sinner, however God might love him, could never be brought into His presence, or be happy there. But who gave the spotless Victim to bear man’s sins? Thus the eternal love of God to man reigns through righteousness in the gift and atoning death of Jesus. It is not man reconciling a hating God by sacrifice to Him, but God, in infinite love, reconciling us to Himself by the very death of the cross. We do not say that many have got entirely clear of this false thought of God. Jesus bore our sins on the cross, not that God might love us, and be favorable to us, but because He did love us. Many scriptures declare this. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8).
Propitiation, then, was the death of Christ glorifying God by making full expiation for sin. Substitution was Christ bearing all our sins as our Substitute. They were, as before God, transferred to Him, the Substitute. The two goats on the day of atonement illustrate, or typify, this {Lev. 16}. The blood of the one was brought before God. All the year’s sins of Israel were laid on the other, the substitute. Both pointed to Christ, the gift of the love of God. He has met the whole question of God’s glory and man’s need. What a place He took for us! The infinite wrath of God against sin has been borne by Him, that the infinite love of God might flow out to the sinner. Truly thus to know God is eternal life. “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love.”
We would further ask, When God in love gave His beloved Son to be the sacrifice for sins, did He provide an inadequate expiation for sins? Did it make nothing perfect, so that it had to be continued, or often offered again?
It is quite certain this was the exact case with all the sacrifices of the law. “The law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:19). These were “a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience” (Heb. 9:9). “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (Heb. 10:11). All this is clear enough. And such was the love of God to us poor sinners, that He could take no pleasure in those oft-repeated sacrifices, because they could not take away sins. (Heb. 10:3-9). Thus they “can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshipers, once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins.” It was because God could have no pleasure in that system of repeated sacrifices, that never could take away sins, that Jesus said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” Note this well, it was the will of God that our sins should be put away. “Therefore he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” He taketh away the whole system of the law’s many sacrifices, that He may establish—what? Some other system of repeated sacrifices often offered, and that can never take away sins? The thought would be a denial of and an insult to Christ. No, the many repeated sacrifices are taken away, and the ONE sacrifice of Christ abides, and is established.
Let us, then, carefully note the effect of that one sacrifice. The sacrifice of the law on the day of atonement was for a year. “But by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained ETERNAL redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12). The believer has thus what He obtained for him—eternal redemption, even the forgiveness of sins. Is it not sin to doubt what God thus says about the ONE sacrifice of Christ? But if you do believe God, you have eternal redemption.
If you have, then, eternal redemption, how can you need another offering for sins? And on this ground Christ is entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; no need to “offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others, for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now ONCE in the end of the ages hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” “Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many.” Thus this ONE offering, offered ONCE, is the very point of contrast with the many repeated offerings and ineffectual sacrifices for sins, and the one sacrifice declared to be the will of God. “By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all.” And mark, Christ sitting down in heaven is a proof that this one offering is all that God requires forever—a sacrifice never to be repeated. “But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” What, then, is the effect of this ONE sacrifice on us? Clearly we need no other sacrifice for our sins. “For by ONE offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” This is truly wonderful. How little is it believed! How little enjoyed! Yet of this very thing “the Holy Ghost is a witness” (v. 15). Do we not grieve the Holy Spirit, then, by doubts or fears? Such is the eternal efficacy of this one sacrifice, that God says, “And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”
Has not the Church of Rome forgotten all this? No more, strange as it may seem, we believe it would be impossible to find a page in all the Fathers, so called, that clearly states the eternal efficacy of the ONE sacrifice of Christ, as stated in this scripture—Heb. 10. The worshiper’s conscience forever purged, God remembering his sins no more, and consequently no more offering for sins. Is this your faith, your happy enjoyment? Oh, wondrous truth! our sins were laid on Jesus, they cannot be charged or imputed to us. This fills the soul with adoring worship.
To the Roman Catholic the Mass is a true expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Some would tell us it was like the offerings of the law, often repeated, only without blood. Others would tell us it is the expiatory sacrifice of Christ continued. “The Mass is, and ought to be, considered one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same... The bloody and unbloody are not two, but only one, victim, whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist... The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord (Catechism of the Council of Trent). Could there be a more fearful mistake, or one more contrary to scripture? Every Mass is a true expiatory sacrifice for sins renewed, or the one sacrifice continued. Mark the consequences. We have seen in scripture that the true atoning sacrifice on the cross was Christ forsaken of God—made sin -being made a curse for us. Can any Roman Catholic say he really believes this, that true sacrifice for sins still continues? Is Christ still forsaken of God? Is He continuously a curse, made sin? Is He still on the cross? This, and this alone, was the true sacrifice. If Christ is still forsaken of God, and a curse, then so are we, for as He is, so are we in this world. This surely is the denial of Christianity—Christ still continuously, or repeatedly, forsaken of God? Does He not sit in the radiance of the glory of God? Has not God raised Him out of death for our justification? But if the Mass is a truth, all is lost. The one sacrifice did not forever perfect—we are not justified—the awful sacrifice is still going on, and Christ is still to continue forsaken of God through all time! For this was the true expiatory sacrifice. Think of that awful hour when His soul was made an offering for sin. Now look at the Mass, the sacrifice for those, whether dead or alive, “whose sins have not been fully expiated,” says the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Where is there one atom of true sacrifice in the Mass? Even supposing the priest really turned the bread into the body, blood, bones, &c., of Christ -suppose that wafer to be Christ—where is the sacrifice? Offering up to God alone, we have seen, is not sacrifice. “Without shedding of blood is no remission.” Does the priest shed His blood in the Mass? No; this is admitted. The only thing Roman Catholic writers can find to say is, that the priest eating the wafer, or Christ, is the sacrifice. If this could be so, where is the resurrection? If the priest swallowed Christ, we say, where is the resurrection of Christ in the Mass, the true sacrifice for sins? “But if Christ be not risen, ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15). If, then, there is neither real death nor resurrection in the Mass, there is neither a true sacrifice for sins, nor an atom of proof that God accepts it. How can there be? when God says in His word that Christ need not offer Himself often (Heb. 9:25); that “there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18); that “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:26). Such is the immutable and eternal efficacy of the one sacrifice of Christ, once offered, that there can be no other; all the believer’s sins forgiven, to be remembered no more; his conscience forever purged—forever perfected—no charge of sins against him possible, since Jesus has borne them all, and God declares, all who believe ARE justified from all things (Acts 13:39). As to all charge of sin or sins, absolutely God declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). No more, God has raised Jesus from the dead for our very justification, made Him to be our ever-subsisting righteousness. “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Thus has God shown His acceptance of the true, only, one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, once offered, and thus does He declare, “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”
It is a terrible thing to fight against God. “For if WE sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain looking for of judgment,” &c. For a Jew who had professed to be a Christian, sanctified by the one offering of Jesus, to go back to the many sacrifices of the law, was to sin willfully. Is it not the same in principle to deny that the one sacrifice of Christ fully purges, or expiates, our sins, and that we must again have priests to offer up sacrifices which never can take away sins? And that, as we have seen, is the flattest possible contradiction of the word of God. Is not this to sin willfully beyond all hope of mercy? It is said, But Christ instituted this continual or repeated sacrifice. Where is there a syllable to show He did? Would you charge Him with instituting that which is no sacrifice? and the word of God declares there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. When we compare the Mass with the true sacrifice of Christ, it is amazing that Satan can so deceive men. Look at that Russian priest; he takes a cake with a seal upon it—mark, before it is consecrated. Then he takes a spear, and pierces the right side of the cake; then stabs it above, then below, then again the right side; then the deacon holds it up, and says, “Slay, sir.” He then cuts across it, and says, “The Lamb is slain.” After this—as it is still allowed to be only a cake of bread—he invokes the Holy Ghost to change it into the body of Christ. Thus he slays Christ before he makes Him. The Roman Catholic priest does not ask the Holy Ghost to change the bread into Christ, but chews the wafer, and says it is Christ!!
And is this the awful blasphemy that is spreading, and fast displacing all true faith in the only one true sacrifice of Christ on the cross? Reader, it is a solemn question for you: Are you resting in the finished work of Christ, or turning to this great masterpiece of Satan? We do not say, Have you found rest there?—how can you find rest in a falsehood? It may be asked, But what did Jesus mean by these words, “This is my body”? We hope to inquire in our next paper.
For a fuller examination of this subject, we commend the reader to “Familiar Conversations on Romanism,” by J. N. D.
Transubstantiation Examined by Scripture
We have seen that the distinct teaching of scripture is, that the one sacrifice of Christ has brought in eternal redemption; that it perfects forever; that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins (Heb. 9; 10).
We would now inquire, Is there any ground in scripture for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper into the real body and blood of Christ; or, as others express it, the doctrine of the Real Presence in the holy Eucharist?
We will turn to all the scriptures quoted as supposed proof. John 6 is quoted by some, though many ancient writers did not believe it referred to the Lord’s Supper. We will examine whether it does so, or not. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, &c.” (Read the whole context, vers. 27-63.) The question is simply this—Is the Lord Jesus speaking figuratively or literally in this chapter? And in answering this question, we would take this ground: in every instance in scripture, where it is intended to be a figure, it cannot be understood to be literal. “Except a man be born again;” “I am the vine, ye are the branches;” “that rock was Christ;” and hundreds more, could not possibly be meant to be literal. The manna was evidently real food, as we learn in Exodus. But when Jesus says, “I am the bread which came down from heaven,” it could not possibly mean that He was literally a loaf of bread from heaven. Was not bread used here as a figure of Jesus sent from heaven, as seen incarnate amongst men? He says, “I am the bread of life.” This He says while He was here a living Man. No change into bread, or bread into Himself, but “I am the bread of life.” Then He says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” To take this literally, then, would be without any change, to say Jesus was then a piece of bread that might be eaten!! and that bread would become flesh—His flesh—and be given for the life of the world. Would it not be just as true to say that He was literally a vine, as to say “I am the bread” was intended to be literal?
As a figure of the incarnate Jesus, bread was very striking. As we receive bread for the nourishment of the body, so we by faith receive the Person of Christ as the incarnate word. But, not only so, we must also receive Him offered on the cross for the life of the world. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” We will look at this literally, and what would follow? If eating the flesh and drinking the blood means eating the wafer, or the wafer, turned into, or changed into, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, then what would the following words mean: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day?” Mark, these words are absolute, without any conditions whatever. “Whoso” would teach that any wicked man unrepentant, or unbelieving, living in sin, yet, if he only ate the Eucharist, had eternal life, and was sure to be raised up by the Lord.
We need not say no Christian can believe this to be the meaning. Therefore the words cannot be intended to be literal, but spiritual, as Jesus says, “What and if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life.” Now take them spiritually. We thus see Jesus come down to earth, the incarnate Son of God. He would give Himself the sacrifice, the shedding of His blood, for the life of the world, and then ascend up again on high; and that he who thus receiveth Himself, according to this revelation, hath eternal life. All is perfectly clear, and in this way no Christian would have a shadow of a difficulty—indeed, this is in perfect harmony with all scripture. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and (believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, &c.” (John 5:24). But we must not only by faith receive Him as the bread, but drink His blood. We must receive the solemn word of His atoning death—the shedding of His blood, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Thus, the more we study this scripture, the more we see the impossibility of, as in every other figure, applying the words in a carnal, or literal way. To put the Eucharist, then, in the place of receiving Christ Himself, by faith, would be a fatal mistake. “I am the bread” meant Himself surely; and so, “my flesh,” “my blood,” meant Himself offered the sacrifice for sins—then to be offered -“I will give for the life of the world.”
We will now turn to the institution of the supper. Let us dismiss every preconceived thought, and look simply at what we do find in scripture. Turn to Matt. 26:26-29. Jesus was here sitting with His disciples, eating the passover—the commemoration really of the passover, the slaying of that lamb, and the sprinkling of its blood, which shielded Israel from divine judgment. Did not that passover point forward to the death of the Lamb of God, which has brought in eternal redemption for all who believe? In a few hours that great redemption would be accomplished. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it [or, gave thanks], and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”
There can be no mistake that He took literal bread—that He gave thanks, and broke IT, and gave IT. Then can the words, “this is my body,” be intended to be literal? If so, would not the Holy Ghost have said, He changed it—the bread—into His body? But there is no such statement, no such thought. He took bread, broke it, and gave it, and then said, This is my body, meaning either as a figure, or that it was so literally. Mark, He held it in His hands after giving thanks. He could not mean that He held Himself—His body—in His hands, or that He brake His own body. But more. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Now He could not possibly mean that this was His literal blood, for it was not yet shed. And mark, He positively set aside the thought that it—the wine—was changed or turned into His blood literally; for He says, after, “this fruit of the vine.” So that, just as it is impossible for such a sentence as this, “that rock was Christ,” and many like it, to be literal, so these words of Christ, “This is my blood... which is shed,” could not possibly mean His precious real blood, as that blood was then in His body, and not shed at all yet. It was the constant manner of Christ to speak in figures, as He said in John 16:25. Hear the breathings of His sorrows to the Father in dark Gethsemane: “O my Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” Was that a literal cup? Yet he uses the same figure in Luke 22:20: “Likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” It is evident the Lord had no thought of meaning His very blood, but used the cup, and the wine poured into it, as a figure of that death in which His own blood must be shed.
Mark, in each of the Gospels there is no mention of the bread or wine being changed into the body and blood; and not a word about giving His apostles, or their successors, power to do so; if there be, let it be shown.
If we look at the Lord’s supper as taking the place of the passover, nothing could be more touching or instructive. It was no longer the paschal lamb that had to be eaten, but the Lord was now just about to give Himself. His own blood was about to be the fulfillment of every type and sacrifice that had been offered. That the Lord only meant the words, “This is my body,” and “This is the cup of the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” as figurative instruction is evident, for it was not shed yet out of His body. Figuratively it set forth that great truth, that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Neither can there be a question as to whether the Lord intended the institution of a continuous sacrifice, or the commemoration of His one sacrifice, as He settles that question by the words, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Plainly it cannot both be the sacrifice and the remembrance of it. Nothing could be more dissimilar than a sacrifice for our sins, and the remembrance of that one sacrifice which has purged and cleansed us from all our sins.
If the Lord’s supper be a sacrifice for sins for the living and the dead, then undoubtedly it will be the one great thing set forth in the Acts and the Epistles, just as it is the one great thing with Ritualists and Romanists. Holy Communion, or the Mass, is the great sum and substance of both. Millions are trusting in it for forgiveness of sins and eternal life—in the real presence in the Eucharist, and as a true sacrifice for sins.
Now, where in the Acts did the apostles once preach the Eucharist for remission of sins, or as a sacrifice? Where is it once put as a means of salvation?
At Pentecost Christ was preached—His death, His resurrection, repentance, and remission of sins, preached in His name; and we find those saved “breaking of bread from house to house.” But Peter gives not the most distant hint that this is the true body and blood of Christ, or a propitiatory sacrifice for sins; and Luke simply records it, “breaking of bread.” Why should we add to the word of God?
Search through the preachings of Stephen, Paul, Peter, Philip, in every place. Not a word about this sacrifice for sins, or the real blood or body of Christ. Did it never strike a Roman Catholic that Peter never said a word about the Mass: or the Ritualist, that Peter, or any other, in all their preachings never once preached the Eucharist, never as a means of salvation? Not a word either about a priest offering the sacrifice. No, the only one place in which the Lord’s supper is named in the Acts, after ch. 2, is in Acts 20:7; and though Paul, and many other servants of Christ, happened to be there, at Troas, yet we find all that is said is, that “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.” No priestly act, but the disciples came together to break bread. No thought of its being anything but bread—no hint whatever of its being a sacrifice for sins. How could it be, when we are assured there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins?
But surely, if it be what the Church of Rome believes, we shall find it in the Epistle to the Romans. There the righteousness of God, in justifying and saving the sinner, is fully explained, but positively not a word in the whole epistle about the Mass, or the real presence in the Eucharist!! Not a word in that epistle which specially treats of God’s great salvation—God’s way of bringing the sinner to Himself. And in the epistles to the young converts in the assembly at Thessalonica, not a word; in the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, not a word; to Timothy or Titus, not a word. Is it not strange that neither Peter nor John should once name it in their epistles? But there is one epistle devoted to the questions of priesthood, and offerings, and sacrifices for sins. Surely, then, if there be continual sacrifices for sins instituted for the church, we must find them in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but not one word about either the real presence in the Eucharist, or that it is a continual sacrifice for sins—no, over and over again, the assurance that there is no such thing, that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
As there is, then, only one epistle in which the subject of the Lord’s supper is explained, let us give it our most careful attention. The question is this—Is it a commemoration of the death of Christ, or is there a thought that it is a continual, or repeated, sacrifice for sins? “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread [or loaf] and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16). Here it is the cup which is blest, and the bread that is broken, but no intimation of any change. Would it not be quite as consistent to say all Christians are changed into bread—“For we, being many, are one bread”—as to say that bread is changed into the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity? As a figure it is most striking. As the twelve loaves signified the twelve tribes of Israel, so the one loaf is a striking figure of the one body of Christ, every particle of that bread forming one loaf, so every Christian forming the one body of Christ.
What, then, is the communion of the body and blood of Christ? The context explains this. Just as those who ate the sacrifices, that is, that part which was not consumed on the altar, whether Jewish sacrifices to God, or of the heathens to demons, became identified with the sacrifice, partakers of it; so we, by this act at the table of the Lord, show that we have fellowship, communion, or identification with the death of Christ. The Jew did not surely eat Jehovah, or the Gentile eat a demon. No, it was left for a darkened Christendom to give birth to such an absurdity.
It is impossible, then, that this communion, or fellowship, can mean either literally eating Christ, or eating devils, but eating that which shows identification with Christ or with demons. “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils.” Surely the Lord’s table would teach us separation from a world that lieth in the wicked one.
We will now turn to the principal explanation in the scriptures of the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:20-34).
There is not a thought here of the assembly at Corinth coming to offer a sacrifice, but simply to eat the Lord’s supper. That which gave occasion to these remarks and explanations was a most sad sin, even drunkenness at the Lord’s supper. Mark, then, what would be involved in the gross blunder of supposing that the wine was changed into the blood of Christ? Could anything more distinctly prove that it remains wine, than this -that it still intoxicates? Not the most distant thought is there of any change of the elements. “For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. Now, we have seen that this could not be literally true, as His body had not yet been pierced—His blood had not yet been shed. He did not take His own body in His hands, and break His body, but He took bread, and three times it is shown to be unchanged bread. “For as often as ye eat this bread (v. 26)” “Whosoever shall eat this bread (v. 27)” “So let him eat of this bread (v. 28).” This, mark, is after the words, “This is my body,” therefore, since it thus remained unchanged, and was to be, not offered a sacrifice for sins, but eaten—literal bread—by all believers, it follows that these words, “This is my body,” could not mean literally so, but as a figure, taking the place of the flesh of the paschal lamb at the old passover. And mark further, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” The Lord did not say, this blood, or this wine, is the blood, but this cup. Evidently this is figurative; call it chalice, or what we may, it is, without a question, figurative, as the Lord used the same expression when speaking to the Father—“If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
If we were to pervert the figures of scripture as men have perverted this, it would turn the whole scriptures into ridicule. Could any man be so blind as to say that Christ meant that He was a true loaf of bread that came down from heaven, or that He was literally a rock in the wilderness?—“and that rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10). Would any man say that Christ was literally a rock, and Peter a literal stone, or rock, if you wish? The slain Christ taking the place of the paschal lamb is a fact, and the words, “this is my body,” contain a most impressive figure of it. And so the wine, as separate from the loaf, shows the absolute necessity of His blood being once and forever shed—never, never, surely to be shed again.
Then the only question that remains is this: Did the Lord institute this supper as a sacrifice for sins; or for a remembrance of His death? Could the answer be more distinct, both as to the bread, and as to the cup? “This do in remembrance of me; For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” This is the plain teaching of Christ. All Christians are to do this in remembrance of Himself; they are not to do it for a sacrifice for sins, but to show forth that death which has made an infinite sacrifice for sins, and which cannot be repeated, for He dieth no more (Rom. 6:9). And He assures us there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But some may say, If you believe Christ, that it is a memorial, and not a true sacrifice for sins, the Council of Trent will curse you, and does curse you, in its canons I., II., III. It is even so; and we prefer to be cursed, believing Christ, rather than blest, believing the Council of Trent. It is exactly so: the plain teaching of the word of God is the bread is to be eaten, the wine drunk, simply in remembrance of Christ, the showing forth of that death by which we have eternal redemption; that Christ dieth no more; that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Crowds of men are now teaching the very opposite of this—that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sins does not forever purge the conscience—that it did not fully expiate for sins, and that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for those whose sins were not fully expiated. Thus souls are persuaded to give up the infinite and eternal efficacy of the one sacrifice, and taught to believe in the many sacrifices offered by men, which never can take away sins. Oh, reader, take heed that you are not deceived to everlasting destruction. If we willfully sin by rejecting the one sacrifice of Christ, there remaineth no other, no more sacrifice for sins; there can be nothing but everlasting judgment (Heb. 10:26).
Do you say, We do not reject the one sacrifice for sins, but we believe that that same Jesus is offered continually, the same sacrifice, on the altar; that the bread is changed by the priest into the whole Christ,—body, blood, humanity, and divinity -and that He is still offered the true propitiatory sacrifice for sins? You cannot possibly have reflected that this would entirely destroy the gospel of God. If this were true, no soul could be saved. “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15). Now it must be acknowledged that in the modern doctrine of the Eucharist—the real body and blood of Christ, the true Christ still offered—there is no resurrection. If Jesus is still on the cross, He is still bearing the wrath of God due to sins—for that is expiation—still made sin. Did He make a mistake, then; when He said, “It is finished”? Is it true, or false, that He made peace by the blood of the cross? If He did, it cannot be made again. If He did not, it never can be made. Has God raised Him from the dead to deceive us, or for our justification?
But it is said the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, and its being a sacrifice for sins, has been the doctrine held by all the Fathers and the whole church, until a few hundred years ago. If this were the case, would this be a sufficient reason why we should reject the distinct statements of scripture? Surely not. We will, however, in our next paper inquire whether this has been so, or not. In the meantime we commend every anxious inquirer to read carefully Heb. 9; 10
The Roman Catholic reader is earnestly requested to read the Rheims translation of those chapters. “By his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained ETERNAL redemption.” “And without shedding of blood there is no remission.” “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies every year with the blood of others.” “In the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ.” “For by one oblation he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” “There is no more an oblation for sin.” “There is now left no sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 9:12, 22, 25; 10:10, 14, 18, 26).
The Real Presence in the Eucharist
We have seen that there is no such teaching in the word of God, either that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are the true, literal body and blood of Christ, or that the Lord’s supper is a true sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead; that when the Lord said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53, 54), this could no more be understood literally His flesh and blood, than when He said, “Except a man be born again,” &c., or when He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.” In every such case the words cannot be intended to be understood literally, but figuratively. We must admit it is impossible for these statements to be true in a literal sense. Could Christ be a rock of stone, and at the same time a piece of paste, or bread? and at the same time a vine, &c.? And if He were bread, the priest could not change bread into bread. It is amazing that the mind of man should be so dark as to pervert these precious scriptures in such a literal manner.
But has not the church always held these doctrines as now held by Rome, and being introduced into the Church of England by the clergy? Have we not the unanimous consent of the Fathers that the bread is changed into the body and blood of Christ? and also that it is offered a true sacrifice for sins?
We challenge the most searching examination of scripture to find the least evidence that either the church in the beginning, or the apostles, held either of these doctrines. After the blessing the bread is still called bread, and the wine is still called the fruit of the vine. And as to all the pretensions of the Mass being a sacrifice for sins, there is not only not such a thought, but it is utterly impossible, and utterly unneeded. The conscience of the believer is purged from sins, and perfected forever, by the one offering of Christ, and there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins—there needs no other—the Holy Ghost bears witness. “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:17, 88). “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (v. 26). Far be it from us to appeal to what is called the church—that is, the clergy—or to the Fathers, for authority. God speaks to us in His word, “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” He assures us He will remember our sins no more. It is enough, our souls can rest in perfect repose, believing the word of God.
An honest inquiry, however, will convince any one who can examine the Fathers, so called, that the pretended consent of the Fathers to these doctrines is utterly false. We would not for a moment refer to the Fathers to establish any doctrine, but merely to show from history that transubstantiation, or the change of the elements into the true body, blood, &c., of Christ was not the doctrine of the early church.
Many passages have been misquoted, and sentences may be taken from their contexts, and made to mean the opposite of the context, but others which have not been tampered with are sufficiently clear. Take this from Origen on John 6: “Acknowledge some things which are written in the inspired volume to be figures, and therefore as spiritual, and not carnal, persons examine and understand what is said; for if as carnal persons you understand them, they injure, and do not nourish you. For there is in the Gospels also a letter which kills; a killing letter is not found in the Old Testament alone. There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who does not understand spiritually the things which are spoken. For if, according to the letter, thou followest the very thing which is said, “Except ye, eat my flesh, and drink my blood,” this letter kills (John 6:54).—R. Pope’s “Roman Misquotations,” p. 120.” Now it is evident that Origen not only understood these words spiritually and figuratively, but he does not seem to be aware of any that read them literally, as he only supposes the case. Tertullian, in writing against the Marcionites (v. 40), says: “Having taken bread, and distributed it to His disciples, He made that His body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. But it could not have been a figure unless the body had been a truth.” This was a striking argument against those who denied that Christ had a real body. The bread could not be a figure of His body if He had not one. Nothing could more clearly explain what the Fathers meant when they spoke of the bread being made the body: they evidently meant it was made a figure of it. But is it not most certain that Tertullian never held the doctrine of the bread being changed into the real body of Christ? It could not be the figure of a thing and the very thing itself. A living horse is not the figure of a horse.
In dialogs against the Marcionites—said to be Origen’s, but not certain: “But if, as they say, He was without flesh and blood, of what flesh and what body, or of what blood, giving both the bread and the cup as images, did He command His disciples to remember Him?” Now, whoever wrote these dialogs, they prove that, in those ancient days, both the bread and the cup were not understood or held to be the true body and blood of Christ, BUT ONLY THE IMAGES of the same, or figures; and that there was no thought of propitiatory sacrifices, but simply done in remembrance of Him.
Cyprian also speaks of it as done in remembrance: “That the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him, is offered mixed with wine. The blood of Christ is shown forth, which is preached by the sacrament and testimony of all scriptures. That it was wine which He called His blood.” He could not possibly speak thus, if He had believed the wine was really changed into the blood of Christ.
Cyril of Jerusalem also distinctly speaks of the bread and wine as figures of the spiritual truth, Christ received by the soul: “For in the figure of bread His body is given unto you, and in the figure of wine, His blood.” It is the unchanged bread and wine that are thus figures. (Cat. xxii., Myst. iii., iv.) Nothing could be plainer than the words of Theodoret (Dialog i., vol. iv). Pages might be quoted to show that he regarded the bread and wine as symbols of the body and blood, not real, as he compares them to the symbols of the vine, &c. He says, “Of what thinkest thou that all-holy food to be the symbol and figure—the divinity of Christ the Lord, or of His body and blood?” Could any person speak thus that believed the bread and wine were changed into the true real body and blood of Christ?
Augustine presses the fact, that, just as the “rock was Christ’s (sic),” so the Lord speaks of the sign of His body as “this is my body.” He insists on this—it does not say the rock signified Christ, it was Christ. In like manner He did not say, This signifies my body, but is my body; yet in both cases the figure was used for the thing signified. (See Can. Ad. xii. 5, &c.)
POPE Gelasius, A.D. 492, speaking of the Eucharist, says, “It does not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, and certainly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries...” Could anything be more clear than this? Here we have a pope teaching the exact opposite of the Council of Trent!! Procopius of Gaza: “For He gave the image of His own body to His disciples.” Clearly the image is not the thing of which it is an image. Eusebius is perfectly clear (Lib. i. 10. Paris, 1628). He speaks of daily celebrating the remembrance of His body and His blood. “Christ having offered for us all an offering and sacrifice, as slain, and given to us a memorial for [or instead of] a sacrifice, to offer continually to God. As, therefore, we have received to celebrate the memorial of this sacrifice on a table by SYMBOLS both of His body and His blood.” The doctrine of Eusebius was a memorial, instead of a propitiatory sacrifice—the modern doctrine of Rome, the exact opposite. He says further, “For by the wine, which is the symbol of His blood, those who are baptized to His death, and believe in His blood, are purged from their old evils,” and much of the same character. He clearly looked upon the bread and wine as symbols only.
Now we might go on quoting similar passages from the Fathers, and the Romanist might find others chiefly spurious, or interpolations, or, if he found some genuine passages which contradict the above, what would he prove? Why, just this -that there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this subject.
Ambrose is often quoted. Let it be noticed, however, that on the fundamental question of eternal redemption he is directly opposed to scripture. We are taught in Heb. 9, 10 that Christ by His own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. “And without shedding of blood there is no remission.” That He is now in the presence of God for us. No need to offer Himself often, for then must He often have suffered. That He appeared once to put away sins by the sacrifice of Himself. That He was once offered to bear the sins of many. That by the will of God we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once—in contrast to the priests standing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Yes, in contrast with all this, Christ having offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God: and that the effect of this is, by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, so that God says He will remember their sins no more. Now where, or since, remission of sins is so complete, “there is no more offering for sin.” Now read Heb. 9; 10, and say, is not this the distinct and blessed truth, foundation-truth of scripture? How completely this was lost, unknown, or denied by Ambrose, let his own words declare: “As often as we receive, we announce the Lord’s death. If we announce death, we announce remission of sins. If, as often as the blood is shed, it is shed for the remission of sins, I ought always to receive it, that my sins may be always forgiven. I who always sin, ought always to have the medicine” (Lib. iv., cap. 7, p. 372). We learn from scripture, through one sacrifice, never to be repeated, our sins are fully and forever forgiven. Ambrose says the very contrary, and implies that the blood of Christ has to be shed again every time he sins. Could anything be more contrary to the foundation-truth of the one sacrifice of the cross? Yet the whole doctrine of the Mass rests on the supposition that the atoning death of Christ was a failure, and therefore has to be repeated, or continued. It is, however, probable that these writings, said to be Ambrose’s, are not genuine; but still the Council of Trent founds its doctrine on them, and Roman Catholic writers quote them.
We give the passage as important, showing the distinct contrast and issue between truth and error, darkness and light: and it is remarkable, no Ritualist or Romanist can be found who believes Heb. 9; 10 In fact, if they did, instead of the falsehood of many sacrifices for sins, many sheddings of the blood of Christ, and, after all, unknown sufferings in purgatory, they would enjoy the abiding certainty that God would remember their sins no more; they would have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. The Church of Rome has no conception what she has lost in giving up the infinite value of the one sacrifice of Christ, and putting in its place the falsehood of the many sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Let it be also clearly understood that this is the one object of the ritualist movement. When we once pointed out the truth of Heb. 10 to a ritualist clergyman, he said it could not be true that the one sacrifice of Christ forever perfected the conscience, for, if that were the case, there could be no future judgment of the believer for his sins; so ignorant was he that that is just what the Lord Jesus declares. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). The believer is justified now from all things. There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ—God will remember their sins no more. Has not our Substitute been judged in our place? We are washed in His blood. What is there left to judge? Then He who washed us from our sins is the judge. Will He condemn His own work? No, when He appears, we appear with Him (Col. 3:4). We shall be like Him (1 John 3:2). When He comes to judge others, we shall come with Him in glory (1 Thess. 3:13; 4:14; Jude 14, 15). We can therefore look forward with joy and delight to meet the Lord in the air before He comes to judge (1 Thess. 4:15-18). We can give thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light... We have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:12-14). But the false doctrine of the many sheddings of blood, or unbloody sacrifices, robs us of the whole of a bright and glorious Christianity. And then these men in darkness would tell us they are the church! It would be great humility to believe them, and be left in darkness and uncertainty; but it is great presumption to believe God, and enjoy the present and everlasting forgiveness of sins!
But we are getting away from the consent of the Fathers. No one can honestly read Augustine, but must admit that he utterly rejected the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and understood it spiritually, as all Christians do.
Fecundus, about the sixth century, says, “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, consecrated in the bread and wine, is said to be His body and His blood; not that His body be bread, or His blood wine, but because the bread and wine are the sacrament of His body and blood, and therefore so called by Christ when He gave them to His disciples.” Bede, in the eighth century, speaks of “the most sacred supper in which He delivered to His disciples the figure of His most holy body and blood.” We might go on giving quotations. If the reader would see how history proves that the doctrine of the corporeal presence was introduced into the west in the ninth century, and what conflict it caused, and how Berengarius resisted it, and stood for the ancient doctrine of the Fathers, that it was a figure, &c., we commend the tracts of the late J. N. D. (Darby) on the Mass and Transubstantiation. He will there also find the authorities for many of the above quotations. It is very difficult to ascertain what the Fathers did say, as they have been so mangled and altered, as may be seen in Pope’s “Roman Misquotations.” It is very easy to alter the whole meaning of a passage by adding a word or two. As an instance, Fulbert of Chartres, in his works published in Paris, referring to eating Christ’s flesh, says, “It seems to command a crime, or atrocity. It is therefore a figure, saith the heretic, commanding only communion with the passion of the Lord.” The words, “saith the heretic,” were not in the manuscript, but added by the publisher. Now read the sentence without them. The words were acknowledged afterward, in errata, to have been added. It might weary both writer and reader to follow the discussions and contentions in the Church of Rome on this subject. Berengarius was silenced, through fear, in the eleventh century, though he could certainly quote the great doctors in opposing the new doctrine of the real presence. It was not, however, until 1215 that it was received as a dogma by the church—by that very man, Innocent III., who established the Inquisition.
We do not profess to be able to read through these Fathers, nor do we possess them, but we give extracts from the writings of one who had them before him, and who diligently read them—now departed to be with the Lord he loved to serve—and as we write this, every extract could be verified in his library. R. Pope, A.M., also gives lengthy extracts from the Fathers, so that the context may be examined.
Every Roman Catholic writer should know, if he has read his own historians, that it is utterly false to say the church has always held the real presence in the Eucharist, or that it was a true propitiatory sacrifice for sins, continued, or repeated. We would, in conclusion, ask the reader, Can the Lord’s supper be possibly eucharistic to you? For what do you give thanks? We beg you will answer that question. Have you ever understood what the atoning sacrifice was? What His soul endured when made sin for us—when forsaken of God—that bitter cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” There, on the cross, His soul was made an offering for sin. Do you know the scriptures, that He said, “It is finished “? Do you know that God has accepted that one sacrifice, never to be repeated, and received Him up to glory? Do you know that that sacrifice is infinite and everlasting, in contrast to the sacrifices of the law, which had to be often repeated? Can you say, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood?” (Rev. 1:5). Can you sit at the Lord’s table, and give thanks because you have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins? Nothing on earth can be more blessed than thus to break bread, remembering Him.
The Mass is the denial of all this. It practically says the sacrifice of Christ is of no more value than the death of a goat. Since you sin again, it must be repeated. It says His work is not finished, but must be continued. It practically denies His resurrection and ascension to glory, for the same sacrifice is still continued. If so, He is still forsaken of God—made sin. Thus there is no Savior who hath delivered us from the wrath to come; there is no salvation possible, if Jesus is still beneath the wrath of God for sins. Your sins are not forgiven, if He is still on the cross, or a propitiatory sacrifice, it is clear, if He has not finished the work once for all. God cannot have raised Him up from the dead for our justification, and if He be not risen, ye are yet in your sins. Thus the Mass entirely destroys Christianity, and then calls itself Eucharist (thanksgiving).
Is it possible for man to go so far astray? Yes, and then call it the only true church! and then declare that these errors have been the truth held by the church in all ages. How thankful we ought to be for the scriptures! We can turn to them, and they at once declare that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Yes, in the light of scripture the Mass is seen to be a vast falsehood—a soul destroying falsehood. As a learned Hindoo (Hindu) observed, there is no idolatry like it on earth—to make a god of paste, to worship it as the true God, and then to eat him. Is not this the strong delusion of these last days? We would not dwell on the revolting discussions of the learned of Rome, as to what becomes of God if a mouse should eat Him; or what becomes of Christ in the sewer after the priest has eaten Him. Surely such thoughts are the lowest point of human degradation and darkness.
But what shall we say of the host of Ritualist clergymen, with the Bible in their hands, teaching these soul-destroying errors of Rome! In many a parish of Protestant England no prayer is more needed, than that God may be pleased to deliver them from the clergyman! Is it nothing that Christianity, the true doctrine of the one sacrifice once offered, should be supplanted by the many sacrifices that never can take away sins? If we walk in the dark, these many sacrifices will suit us; but, “if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (John 1:7).
Death is no more possible to Him, and sin is no more imputed to us.
The Confessional
We desire fairly to examine the argument in favor of the confessional but if the reader expects sarcasm, or ridicule, we trust he will be disappointed. It is a subject of far too great importance, in our judgment, to be treated in that way. It affects the whole question of peace with God. It is held and practiced, more or less, by more than 100,000,000 {1880s estimate} of the human race, and is sincerely believed by great numbers, as a practice that can be proved from scripture; yes, that it was established by Christ; first to His apostles, and then to their successors.
As we write for plain earnest people who desire to know the truth on this subject, before entering more directly on the argument in favor of the confessional, we will call the attention of the reader to the Person, and words, of the Lord Jesus, in a few scriptures that bear on this question.
1st. Matt. 11, read vv. 25 to 30. Are you heavy burdened with sins? What is His instruction to you? Is it that you must go to the priest to confess, and then the priest will give you rest? Very far from this: Jesus says, “COME UNTO ME, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Is it not strange that millions will believe, and go to the priest, how very few really believe Jesus. Does He not say, “I will give you rest”? Do you believe Him? How few know Jesus, and His readiness, to give them rest. We shall find shortly that it is His joy to give rest.
2nd. In John 4:7-34. Here we have a sinner face to face with Jesus, God manifest in the flesh. Does He say to this woman at Samaria’s well, wait until Peter comes, and confess thy sins to him? Blessed Jesus! He says, “Give me to drink.” Yes, He would have the joy of her salvation. Did He not say to her, “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water?” Is it possible for these words of Jesus, to mean anything else than His utmost readiness to meet the sinner? And mark, He says that which He gives shall satisfy forever. “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” None but Jesus can give that which satisfies forever. The priest charges according to the weight of the burden: Jesus gives rest.
3rd. John 7:37-39. Now look at Jesus: and hearken to His gracious words. Yes, gracious words. The Pharisees and priests hated Him. Oh, think of these religious men, sending officers to take Jesus. In the midst of rejection, He stood and cried saying, “If any man thirst, let him COME UNTO ME, and drink.” No thought in His mind of sending them to the apostles first to confess. No, “Let him come unto me and drink.” Could the love of Jesus be more free. Still in His word He cries, “If any man thirst let him come unto me, and drink.” But now carefully notice, there is something far more than this. Far more than only receiving, that which gives everlasting satisfaction to his own soul who comes to Jesus and drinks. What he receives, he shall communicate to others. “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified).” Mark, these words are not in any sense spoken only to the apostles, or limited to them. They are spoken to whom? “If any man thirst.” This then is clear, that if a weary heavy laden sinner, thirsting for pardon, and rest, comes direct to Jesus: he not only receives perfect peace, and rest, but what is most important to know, that now the Holy Ghost has been given: he receives power to be a communicator of peace, and rest, like a river, to others. Is not this a happy privilege of every thirsty weary soul, that comes to Jesus Himself? Surely no one can deny this.
4th. John 20:19-23. We now come to the scripture, on which the argument is chiefly based for authority for confession to the priests. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It is assumed that these words were addressed to the apostles as such: and power thus given to them, as apostles: as the guardians of the church; and after them, to their successors. If this be so, the confessional is established beyond a doubt. If this is not so, the whole theory of the confessional is clearly a mistake, so far as this scripture goes. The question is this, who are meant, or included in the pronoun “ye.” “Whose soever sins ye remit,” &c. It is easy to assert anything, and common for those ignorant of the scripture to accept the assertion. We shall find the matter quite clear, if we carefully examine the context of the words of the Lord.
The scene is now changed. The great work of redemption is accomplished. Jesus has died for the sins of many. He has uttered those wondrous words, “It is finished.” The spear has pierced His side, “and forthwith came out blood and water.” The atoning work is done. The body of Jesus has been laid in the sepulcher. The disciples of Jesus “knew not as yet the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” A report had reached them, that Mary Magdalene had seen the risen Lord: that He was actually risen from among the dead; yes, that they were now in a totally new position. He had said, “Go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” They could not have been in this position and relationship, one with the risen Christ, before He died and rose again (see John 12:24).
Well, the report had gathered them together in an upper room. Let us here carefully examine who were gathered in that upper room, before we look at the words spoken to them. We are not told here it was the eleven apostles, but simply “The doors were shut where the disciples were assembled,” &c.
It may be asked, but may not the word “disciples” mean only the eleven? No, that is not so, if we turn to Luke’s account of this same event. “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them” (Luke 24:33-38). This gathered company, with the apostles, is spoken of again: “These ALL continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women... And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty), &c.” Thus it is a gross mistake to limit this to the apostles. It was the gathered disciples, men and women: about one hundred and twenty gathered together by the report of the resurrection of the Lord.
Let us return and hear His words to the gathered disciples. Not yet the church, His body: for the Holy Ghost was not yet come down to baptize them into one body. But did not this assembly of disciples rather represent the whole church of God, than any order of separate priesthood? Apostles and disciples were all together, one company. What Jesus said to one, He said to all. And what He said to them, He says to the whole company of believers, from that day to this. That is having made peace by the blood of the cross: having been delivered for their sins, and raised again for their justification. As once their sin bearer, so now their everlasting righteousness. His first blessed words to them were “Peace [be] unto you.” Oh wondrous words to the soul that believes them! Were they worthy in themselves of these words of peace? Far from that, they had all forsaken Him; yes, the very apostles: one had denied Him most sadly. No, they were words of pure, unmerited, free favor. “Peace be unto you.” He had made peace by His death on the cross. He did not point to one thing they had done. He could not; no, it was wholly what He had done. “And when he had so said he showed unto them his hands and his side.” In Luke He said, “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? behold my hands and my side.” Now the company of disciples must be well grounded in this peace. They must know that there is nothing now between them and God, their Father. Sins all forgiven, unclouded peace. Therefore we read, “Then said Jesus to them AGAIN, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” They must be deeply settled in His peace to fit them for what He is about to say. Even as He had foretold before His death for them. When He promised the Holy Ghost the Comforter: He also said, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” But now having made peace as He shows them His hands and His side, He proclaims peace to them: to the whole company alike. Just think what an infinite meaning was contained in those few words. Peace unto you: and again repeated.
No doubt we all find it is Satan’s one great effort to keep us from believing those words of Jesus, direct from Himself.
But now He tells them a wonderful thing. Just as He had said: not only should the heavy-laden find rest who came to Him. And the thirsty that came to Him should drink, but also, “He that believeth on me... out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Not only should he receive himself the living water, but should communicate it, like rivers of living water, to others: so here. Jesus had been sent to them. And from Him they had received perfect peace. And also in the fullness of abounding grace, He says, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” As they had in mercy received the message of divine grace from Him: even so they were now to be sent by Him to be the communicators of the same peace to others. And this peace would be as solid as was their own. But in order to be the communicators of this peace or perfect forgiveness of sins, two things were needed. They must have eternal life themselves, and they must receive the Holy Ghost. “And when he had said this, He breathed on them, and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Now, though the Holy Ghost when He came, did chiefly use the apostles in this great privilege: yet we must admit that the commission was given to the assembled disciples: to every individual in that company. If we turn to the Gospel of Luke we shall find a fuller explanation of this commission had been given: so John, writing after, just names the fact in a few striking words. It was the same occasion evidently: and having spoken peace to them (Luke 20:36-44), and confirmed that peace by the proofs of His resurrection, Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Both these scriptures being spoken by the Lord to all the assembled disciples: do they not clearly mean that as they had received peace, all sins forgiven through the accomplished work of Jesus: so now they were by the power of the Holy Ghost to preach forgiveness of sins to whosoever should believe the message? Jesus said, "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Thus if we take scripture, we do not find in this great commission of Christ, a word about confessing to a priest: but remission of sins through preaching the glad tidings.
It may be said, but the Fathers entirely disagree with all this. We are sorry if they do; if the Fathers disagree with scripture, so much the worse for them.
But further, the disciples did not tarry, until they were, at Pentecost, endued with power from on high. They were baptized by the Holy Ghost. How did they understand sins were to be remitted and retained? Their acts will answer. In Acts 2 we find they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. And they began to speak in other tongues, &c. Peter’s sermon is recorded. He opened the scriptures to the multitudes, as Jesus had opened them to him. He preached the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the rejected Christ. Great numbers were pricked to the heart, and cried out, “What shall we do?” Did he say you must confess your sins to us, the apostles? He must have done so, had he so understood the words of Jesus. He did not: but in perfect keeping with the high commission of the Lord, he PREACHED TO THEM repentance and forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.” It is sad that the word “repentance” has been perverted to “do penance,” and this explained to be in part, confession of sins to a priest. They who do so, well know the Greek word can have no such meaning. God does not need such unrighteousness to uphold His truth. Repentance is evidently that self-judgment, and abhorrence of sins, which always accompanies salvation. This then is how Peter used the keys committed to him. In preaching, not by confession of sins to a priest, he opened the door into the kingdom to the Jews. We shall now see how he opened the door to the Gentiles. (Acts 10). He was specially sent by a vision to do this, to him a very strange work. Here he takes up carefully the question of remission of sins. Cornelius was a devout man, but how often it is the case, the more devout, the deeper the need is felt for sins to be remitted, and also the desire for peace with God. Cornelius says,
"Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." If Peter therefore believed in the confessional, as one of the things commanded him of God; no the great thing to meet a burdened soul; Christ’s appointed means of remission: he must assuredly so instruct Cornelius and his company. Did he do so? Not a thought of it! What did he do? He opened his mouth and preached the word.
"The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, PREACHING PEACE BY JESUS CHRIST: [He is Lord of all]."
Just as he had received peace, and preached it to Israel, so now he preaches the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Can there be a question how he understood the gracious commission of Christ? No he explains how, “And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify,” &c.
But it may be asked whose sins does he remit? Hear his own answer,
"To him [to Jesus] give all the prophets witness, that through his name WHOSOEVER believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Peter did not remit sins in his own name: neither is there a thought of coming first to the confessional, for, "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Is it not then sad to displace preaching forgiveness of sins by the confessional? And if we carefully compare every case in the Acts, we shall find it is through preaching the word that sins are remitted. Let us notice one more instance: Acts 13. We shall find Paul adopting precisely the same means, the preached word. Not an allusion as to confession to a priest. He first preached how God had sent Jesus, His death and resurrection. Then he says, "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached [or proclaimed] unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him, ALL THAT BELIEVE are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."
And as justification is the ground of peace, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore Paul preaches peace to others, just as the Lord had proclaimed it to the gathered disciples. He declares distinctly whose sins are remitted, that is, that all who believe are justified. He thus communicated the peace he had received. And whose soever sins he thus declared remitted, were remitted, and they, all who believe, are justified. But does he as distinctly declare whose soever sins are retained? Yes, he says also, “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish.” We invite the closest examination of every preaching in the Acts, and it will be found the same. Philip at Samaria. Paul at Philippi, or at Thessalonica: not a thought of the confessional, but in every case the preached word. Is it not strange, if the confessional were the appointed means of forgiveness of sins, that the apostles should never have once thought of it We will now examine a scripture, often referred to, in proof of the confessional. Matt. 16. In contrast with the mere opinions of men as to who Christ was: Peter by faith confessed Jesus thus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The person of the Christ, the Son of the living God, was revealed by the Father, to Peter. The Lord Jesus in pronouncing him blessed, changes his name from Simon to Petros (a stone), He said, "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Petros [a stone], and upon this Petra [rock] I will build my church; and the gates of hell [or powers of death] shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." If we compare Eph. 2:20, we shall see that Christ did not intend to build His church on a loose stone like Petros: but to him a stone, in Himself, the rock. That is, the revelation of the Person of the Son, by the Father, is the foundation rock. Himself the rock. And, as another has shown, the keys were not given to Peter to build the church with. Christ builds the church, that which Satan who holds the power of death cannot prevail against. Distinctive power was given to Peter, as to the kingdom, not the church: he undoubtedly had the privilege of opening the doors both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, to take that new position on earth: in the place of the kingdom of Israel, now set aside: called the kingdom of heaven, while the king should be in heaven. It is all a mistake as to this scripture, to suppose that Peter had power to bind, or loose, in heaven. It is “on earth!” the sphere of his power was in the kingdom on earth. It may be asked, are not they the same, the kingdom of heaven and the church? Totally different in scripture. The powers of death cannot prevail against the church, that which Christ builds. Christ distinctly taught that Satan would prevail against the kingdom, and fill it with tares {Matt. 13}. And these continue in the kingdom unto the end. Have they not abounded in the kingdom, or Christendom, as we say, from that day to this? But that which Christ builds shall stand forever (Eph. 5).
Whatever power Peter had, then, was as to the kingdom, the new order of things on earth. By his preaching we have seen he loosed the door, for both Jews and Gentiles. And the unbelieving Jews have been bound in blindness of heart to this day.
Now as to binding and loosing, or the ordering of things on earth: is there any reference to its continuance, or a succession? There is a remarkable one, and this demands our close attention: Matt. 18:19, 20: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."Here then at least is the true apostolic succession. The very words spoken to Peter are given here. Who then are these two or three gathered {together} to the name of Jesus? And what is it that they have power to do, the Lord Himself being in their midst? We find in this scripture, Jesus is teaching the lowliness that becomes those who enter the kingdom. And a forgiving, loving, seeking spirit is taught. A case is then supposed, of a brother trespassing against a brother: mark, it is not a matter of sins against God. Neither is there a thought of man having power to forgive such sins. The brother offended, is first to seek to gain his brother: failing this he is to take one or two more; if he still fails to win his brother he is to tell it to the church. He does not say the Church of Rome: or the Church of England, &c., but “tell it to the church.” In the beginning this was possible. Now it is not. Where is “the church”? Man has made many churches, but in the present state of division and confusion, what does the Lord consider to represent “the church”? He makes this quite clear:
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Yes, that little gathering, which the priest might despise with disdain or persecute to the bitter death, is that to which Christ speaks the same words as He spake to Peter. But the binding and loosing here evidently refers to restoration of an offended brother in forgiveness and in love. Thus Peter understood it, as he says,
How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him, until seven times? Now is it not most sad to wrest such plain scriptures as these, and build upon them the terrible mistake that Christ has given power to forgive sins against God?
Confession of sins is of essential importance: and is connected in scripture with the blessedness of sins forgiven. But there is no uncertainty as to whom we should confess.
"I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and my iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin" (Psa. 33). "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified,” &c. (Psa. 51). And in the New Testament, speaking of Christians, we read, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Is “He” God, or the priests? John wrote these words that we sin not. “And if any man sin.” Here we come to the very point. If a Christian should fall into sin, those who defend the confessional would say, he must confess to the priest, and in this way receive absolution. The scripture says, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins, &c." {1 John 2:1, 2}. Could you tell us of any two things more opposed than scripture and the confessional? In this paper we do not propose to speak a word about its abuse, but to show that in principle it is utterly opposed to the truth of God, and has not surely a single text to rest upon. We might refer to every word that came from the lips of Christ in proof. Take the parable of the prodigal. Would it not entirely falsify the true character of God, who had given His Son to die for the lost one, to say that before the Father could receive the lost son, he must first confess to the priest, and pay for his sins? "When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him" . Do you think such a Father needs a priest to soften his heart towards the returning sinner? We do not for a moment question discipline in the assembly, as 1 Cor. 5, but this is altogether a different matter from private confession to a priest. And if the Lord had a thought of this (discipline) even in John 20:23, we have seen it was spoken to the company of disciples. And as “the church” is no longer gathered together in separation from the world, the only thing that answers to it now, is that which the Lord still recognizes. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, THERE AM I IN THE MIDST OF THEM" {Matthew 18:20} The confessional proves how sadly men have lost the true knowledge of God. The apostle John said,
"We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love."
Is it possible to know God and then require a sinful man to stand between us and infinite love?
Ritualism and What Will Be the End of It?
"And as Jesus entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: and they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole" (Luke 17:12-19).
There has been much said of late on the subject of Ritualism, but I have not yet seen it brought to, and fairly examined by, the word of God, in the presence of Him who is the light. This I desire to do; and so far as God by His Spirit shall guide me in His word, I hope to declare, unflinchingly, the counsel of God on this subject.
The Scripture before us throws great light on Ritualism. Let us examine it. In a certain village there were ten lepers. And into that village Jesus enters. Here is man suffering from that loathsome disease which, above all others, is a picture of his horrible state through sin. Into this scene Jesus enters. And man, the leper, stands face to face before Jesus, the Savior. Have you, my reader, ever thus stood face to face before this same Jesus? I say, Jesus comes into this scene. Jesus thus meets man in his wretchedness. What a strange cry the presence of Jesus called forth from these poor lepers! "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us" {Luke 17:13}. Surely this is the proper language of man as a sinner. And He who alone could heal the leper, can meet and cleanse the sinner. These ten lepers knew their need. May I ask, Have you ever known your deep need of the cleansing blood of Jesus? But what a strange answer Jesus gives them: "Go show yourselves unto the priests" {Luke 17:14}. Marvelous words! As though He had said, Go to the Levitical ritualism. I suppose you remember, my reader, that that ritualism was not yet abolished—the work was not yet finished—the one sacrifice was not yet offered—the veil was not yet rent. If you turn to the Levitical ritualism (Lev. 14), the first thing you learn is, that it was of no use for the leper to show himself to the priest except he was healed. Very beautifully is the principle of faith brought out here then: Go show yourselves to the priests. Unbelief might have said, no, would have said, “But we do not feel any better.” To look at themselves, how could they go? They heard and believed the words of Jesus. Have you thus heard and thus believed? Or are you saying, I must feel better first?
He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life {John 5:24}. And it came to pass, as they went they were cleansed {Luke 17:14}. Yes, they felt better, not before, but after they believed: they were cleansed. This was a reality, a certainty. This is the simple, naked principle of faith. In Jesus they had found the substance of which the ritualism of Lev. 14 was but a series of shadows. Very striking were these ancient shadows. Viewing the poor leper as a type of the sinner, then these shadows set forth the varied aspects of the offering and resurrection of Christ. Indeed it is full of Christ. It was then God's ritualism. Each rite pointing to Christ. The law of the leper could not heal the leper. Oh! no, when compared with our precious Christ, these were mere beggarly elements. But when he was healed, then the priest took two birds, alive and clean. And by these two birds was shadowed forth the only way by which a sinner can be cleansed. One bird was killed. Yes, for Jesus must needs suffer atoning death. He "was delivered for our offenses" {Rom. 4:25}. But for this death, faith would have nothing to rest in. Then the other bird was dipped in the blood of the bird that was killed. Seven times is this blood sprinkled on him that is to be cleansed. The priest pronounces him clean; and then lets the living bird fly into the open air. This living bird was God’s pronunciation that the leper was clean. "And was raised again for our justification" {Rom. 4:25}. If the poor leper believed God’s pronunciation, he knew for certain, that as sure as the live bird was let loose, so surely he was clean. And if you, my reader, believe God, who raised up Jesus from among the dead, who was thus delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification, then, like the cleansed leper, you know with certainty that as surely as Jesus is raised from the dead, so surely are you justified. And in Him you are clean every whit. This you may find fully proved in Rom. 4 and 5. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead, is God’s pronunciation that the believer is justified.
And believing God, his sins are forgiven; sin is not reckoned; righteousness is reckoned. Oh! what peace toward God this gives!
The apostle says,
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" {Rom. 5:1}.
Now if the leper knew he was clean when the priest said so, may not the believer know that he is justified when God says so? Surely the resurrection of Jesus is a brighter proof than the letting loose of the little bird. Just think these three things over again. Sins forgiven—sin not reckoned—righteousness reckoned. Justified from sins by the blood of Jesus; justified from sin; reckoned dead with Him. Reckoned righteous, or justified in Him risen: all of Adam passed away, all now accomplished righteousness in the risen Christ. And to the believer this is most true on the principle of naked faith in the word of God.
Deeply interesting are the truths shadowed forth in Lev. 14. Everything of mere nature cut off—the hair and the beard. The washings and the offerings, all of which point to Christ, and all tell out in softest harmonies the perfection of His one offering. I do love to think, that, as the once wretched leper and "those things" {Lev. 14:11} were presented before the Lord, so I, by nature a sinful leper, am now presented in all the perfections of Christ, through the value of His blood, in all the sweet savor of His holy person. Oh! my God and Father, am I thus forever presented, forever perfected in Him? I bow, I own the riches of thy grace, the depths of thy mercy. And now, if we trace this wondrous lesson a little farther, we find the once wretched leper anointed with oil. The blood of the trespass-offering is put upon the tip of his right ear, the thumb of his right hand, the great toe of his right foot, and the oil, sprinkled seven times before the Lord, is put upon the blood, "and poured upon his head" {see Lev. 14:18}. Oh! how blessedly this tells out the perfect value of the blood of Jesus! It makes the once guilty sinner a perfected worshiper. And where the blood is seen, the Holy Ghost is given as an ever abiding witness of the value of that precious blood. Very fully is this seen in Heb. 10. But let us return to our ten lepers. They believed the word of Jesus, and as they went they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back. Just now there were ten faces on ritualism, and ten backs on Christ; now one turns his back on ritualism and his face on Christ. And while these nine are ritualists, this one becomes a worshiper. I am not speaking of man’s ritualism, towards which nine out of every ten faces seem turned in this day; but of God’s own ritualism, given expressly by Himself until Christ the Substance came. And this I learn, that when this poor leper knew Jesus to be the living God, he could not have his face to Jesus without turning his back on ritualism. Which way do you stand, my reader? Is your face toward ritualism?—then your back is on Christ. If your face is toward Christ, then your back is on ritualism.
But this one knew he was healed. He did not hope so. If he had, he had better have gone with the nine to see the bird let loose.
"He with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face, giving him thanks" {Luke 17:15, 16}. It was quite right for a leper in his wretchedness to cry, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on me" {see Luke 17:13}. Would it be right now that Jesus had had mercy? Would this have been worship, to have kept saying, “Jesus, have mercy upon me, a miserable leper?” You know it would have been insult, and mockery, and unbelief. And let us carefully note how welcome this worshiper was to Jesus.
"Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God save this stranger. And he said into him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole" {Luke 17:17-19}.
Now I believe the root of ritualism is that unbelief which doubts the reality of the grace of God, in the work of Christ; and the certain remedy against it is that simple faith that, knowing I am cleansed, gives glory to God.
The Samaritan leper knew he was cleansed, then why should he go to ritualism to be cleansed? He knew that Jesus had in richest mercy healed him, then why should he cry any more, Jesus, Master, have mercy on me? Then what gives glory to God from one who is cleansed? Adoring thanksgiving!
Let us, then, apply this to the sinner’s salvation; and the real source of ritualism will be as clear as noon-day.
Let us take a believer, who knows that Jesus has met all his need as a sinner on the cross; that God has thus shown him the deepest mercy; that he is sanctified by the offering of Christ: not only cleansed, but forever perfected. And if he believes Heb. 10 he must know all this. Now does it become him to approach God as a miserable sinner, ever crying for mercy to God; as if he doubted every word that God has spoken? Yes, it is a very solemn thing to say, but it does seem to me that to act in this way of unbelief, is really to deny that Jesus has come in the flesh, and finished the work of redemption. It is quite true if you do not believe God, and if you are not therefore cleansed; if you do not believe that God has shown mercy, love, and righteousness, in the gift of Jesus; if you can deliberately say that God’s testimony to the blood of Jesus is not enough to give the certainty of peace. Very well, then you are quite consistent in still crying for mercy, and in turning your back on Christ, and your face on ritualism.
But I think I hear my reader say, “My dear sir, you are forgetting that thousands of real Christians are taught to express their humble doubts, by taking the position of the sinner, ever crying for mercy.” I beg your pardon, I do not forget this: but I believe that this very thing is the reason why so many are taken up with ritualism. Let me ask you: If you are cleansed, can anything be more dishonoring to Christ than to doubt it? And can anything be more pleasing to Him, than to fall at His feet a happy worshiper, giving Him thanks? I will grow a little bolder, and say, that no person who knows, on the testimony of God’s word, that he has redemption, even the forgiveness of sins, through the blood of Jesus, can possibly be
taken up with ritualism. Surely this must be a solemn question, for all who love the truth of the believer’s complete justification in the risen Christ. Many have thus been blest: were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? May our blessed God turn your face to Christ, and your back on everything else. The nine lepers had their backs on Jesus, and their faces toward the ritualism of Jerusalem. The ritualist now stands with his back on Christ and his face, where? Is it not on the ritualism of Rome? And what is the ritualism of Rome? Is it not a system of rites and ordinances of men, all based on the supposition, that the believer is not cleansed from all sins? that the one sacrifice of Christ once offered is not perfect, and is not everlasting in its efficacy? that there needs repetition of sacrifice, like the imperfect sacrifices of the law? that all believers have not boldness to enter into the presence of God, as holy worshipers? no, that the blood of Jesus is of so little value, that those who do believe will have to be burnt in purgatory, &c.? I am no controversialist, but can any one show me that this unbelief, and turning the back on Christ, is not the very foundation of Romish ritualism? If by one sacrifice I am forever perfected, what need have I of either the sacrifice of the mass or purgatory? If you look in Col. 2, you will find that this completeness in Christ is the grand reason why we are forbidden to have anything to say to ritualism. The ritualist is very consistent; he does not believe in this completeness in Christ; and therefore he turns his face to ritualism. The believer is shown to be complete in Him. Buried with Him; risen with Him. All trespasses forgiven. And it is this being dead and risen with Him that constitutes our completeness in Him. "Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh" {Col. 2:20-23}. Now just as faith produces obedience, so unbelief always leads to disobedience. The ritualist does not believe in this completeness in Christ risen; he therefore disobeys with all his heart these plain commands of scripture. He says, I will be subject to ordinances—I will touch, I will taste, I will handle—I will walk after the commandments and doctrines of men. His whole system is will-worship. Thus unbelief produces a harvest of disobedience to God. Thus is his back on Christ and his face on ritualism. O how sweet the contrast to the Christian! If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, &c." {Col. 3:1-4}. The one leper knew be was cleansed, then why still pray for mercy and cleansing? Much more, why should he go back to the rites of Leviticus to get cleansing when now he knew that he was cleansed? The believer can give thanks, like the one leper, with a loud voice, as it is written, "Giving thanks unto the Father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son; in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:12-14).
Is this the thanksgiving of your soul, my reader? Do you thus believe that the redemption you have, is absolutely perfect, and makes you fit for the inheritance in light? I say again, the whole question turns on faith or unbelief. Perhaps you say, “If this is the case, turning the back on Christ in unbelief, and going back to ritualism is a very serious matter: what will be the end of it?” Yes, that is just what I want to inquire into
WHAT WILL BE THE END OF IT?
That question will be answered if we examine a parallel case in Heb. 10.
The whole of this epistle is occupied with the ritualism of the law: each part is contrasted with the person and work of Christ. And we are distinctly told in Heb. 9, the Holy Ghost signified by that ritualism, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest: that these were only carnal rites or ordinances imposed until Christ. Then in Heb. 10 the sacrifices of that ritual are shown to make nothing perfect or complete. But the one sacrifice of Christ makes all who are sanctified by it forever perfect or complete. Now God bears witness to this perfection in two ways.
There is one who bears witness in heaven: Jesus Himself, "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.... For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" {Heb. 10:12-14}. Then there is another on earth: the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us. Do you believe this double witness of God? He has taken up the Holy One who died for our sins. Raised for our righteousness or justification, He sits in peaceful proof that the atoning work is done. The Holy Ghost too has been sent down, abiding witness of the perfect place into which we are brought by the blood of Jesus. God says to every believer, Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more {Heb. 10:17}. If I am not a believer, I say; if I have not faith; then I can only stand at a distance, crying for mercy, and hoping to be saved. Sad, sad it is, if the Christian is put by man into that false place. This is the true place which the Holy Ghost gives to every believer: Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus {Heb. 10:19}. This is Christianity, as of God, in contrast with the shadows of ritualism, which could not remove the veil that shut out man from God. Very simple this, but do you believe it? Can, you say, By the blood of Jesus I have now boldness within the veil? Can you say, that having such a high priest, as a purged worshiper I need no other? If you cannot, you do not believe in the blood of Jesus, and you do not believe in the priesthood of Christ. All turns, you observe, on this point; if you believe God, the blood of Jesus gives you boldness in the holiest, for His word says so, and you need no other intercessor, for He ever liveth to make intercession for you.
Oh! where are you? Can you fall like the one leper at the feet of this holy Jesus, giving Him thanks for thus cleansing and fitting you for the holiest? Or is your back on Him, and your face on ritualism? If so, this brings us to the solemn question, What will be the end of it? Will you read Heb. 10:26? "For if we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." But, you say, you surely would not apply that to the ritualist! Where is the difference? The Holy Ghost plainly applies this to the Jew who had heard and professed Christianity. To go back to the ritualism of the law, was to sin willfully. God speaks of such, as having trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and done despite unto the Spirit of grace.
Now I do believe that this is also the truest possible description of the ritualist of this day—yes, every line of it. The sinning willfully is what marks its contrast with dark Rome. For the poor Romanist is brought up in total ignorance of Christianity, as described in this chapter of Hebrews. And in the midst of his intercessors and masses and purgatory, he knows no present way into the holiest, but sighs in uncertainty, and, unless God in His mercy prevent, dies in despair. Not so our ritualist of the Reformation. The glorious sound of justification by faith has rung in his ears. And it is not a little remarkable that at the very time that the gospel of God’s righteousness is being proclaimed far and near, the ritualist willfully rejects it all, and acts over again the Jew of old who draws back to perdition.
I think this paper is being read by a young person, who is attracted by the outward show of ritualism. Mark well, all this is of man’s will, will-worship. It is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is judgment and fiery indignation. In the midst of so much light, and to go back to rites, and shadows; if this is not sinning willfully, what possibly can be?
"He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy " {Heb. 10:28}. And will you despise the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the blood of Jesus? Will you deny that the just One has died for the unjust to bring us to God? Christianity is the blessed fact that by this death, this one sacrifice, the believer’s sins are forgiven, never to be remembered against him; that he is now, like the leper, a cleansed worshiper in the presence of God, needing no rites or ceremonies, to bring him there. O my reader, is this now your happy position? or do you doubt it, and in practice deny it? If you cling to shadows, your back is on Christ the substance; and you deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ. The Samaritan leper alone gave glory to God. The happy believer who takes this place, as a cleansed worshiper, alone gives glory to God.
But it may be said, are there not crowds drawing back to ritualism and to Rome? Is there not less and less of worship in spirit; and more and more of outward show; each of the so-called reformed churches, pleasing the world, with gothic buildings, and what attracts the natural taste of man? I own the full sad truth of this. And let me ask you; If the despising of the finished work of Christ, and the blessed place of a cleansed worshiper by His blood, brought down the judgments of God on the Jews of old, what may we expect, now England is doing the very same thing? I do solemnly believe that England and Christendom are on the eve of being given up to the strong delusions foretold in 2 Thess. 2. Yes, the multitude, who are rejecting the truth of God willfully, and going back to ritualism, may with certainty look for the judgment, and fiery indignation of God. There is much more hope of a dark Romanist who has never known the truth, than of those who have known it and now deny it, and go back to ritualism. It is the most dreadful position that a soul can be found in. Allured to perdition, by sacred song, and everything that can fascinate the natural mind. Such is Satan’s great success of the day. Do you say, I speak strongly, where is my proof? The proof is plain enough. If you reject the efficacy of the one sacrifice that is forever perfect, then there remaineth no other sacrifice for sins. You must be eternally lost. But if you believe and rest in the efficacy of that blood, and thus know that you are forever perfected, then you cannot be a ritualist. The two things are as opposite as light and darkness. In a word, you cannot have your face on Christ, with the certainty that you are cleansed, without turning your back on ritualism.
I confess I have little hope for those who have thus deliberately trodden under foot the Son of God. But to the wavering, the perplexed, the tempted; may God in His mercy stop you, awaken, and save you. Oh! to meet God now as the lepers met Jesus: to hear His word—to believe it! Are you yet a sinner? Then
"Be it known unto you... that through this man [Jesus] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him ALL that believe are justified from all things" {Acts 13:38, 39}.
O the mighty principle of this simple, naked faith! God sets before you the death of Jesus for sins; the resurrection, or Jesus risen, for justification. All, all the sinner needs is thus set forth in Jesus. God proclaims sweet pardon to you through this same Jesus. Do you believe God? The leper did not say, That is too easy—I must do, DO, DO, first. No. And he did not say, I must FEEL, FEEL better. Do you say so? He did not say, No man can tell whether he is cleansed or not—did he? Do you say so? He knew it, he turned his back on ritualism. Do you, as a believer, know that you are justified? If you do believe God, then you must know you are justified, because He says so—does He not? Would you say, No man knows whether God speaks truth or not? May God give you that faith in Him that will enable you just now to turn your back on ritualism and your face on Christ—knowing that you are cleansed in His precious blood. May you thus give glory to God with a loud voice! And to the God of all grace be everlasting praise.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.