Third Conversation.
N*. Well, James, you expect M., as it was arranged.
James. Yes, Sir; he will be here, no doubt, directly. Pray sit down, Sir.
N*. Thank you. How are you getting on?
James. 1 find my spirit happy and at peace. I enjoy the Word now with Mary and the children. I feel I am very weak, but I am conscious that my peace rests on Christ's perfect work, and, as to the certainty of it, on God's own Word; while I enjoy it within in my own soul. It makes me wonderfully happy, for I see it all flowing from God's blessed love. I know He loves me, unworthy as I am, but, then, I have no difficulty in believing it because of Christ. I hope I may be able to glorify Him through His grace.
N*. The Lord be praised, James; and this is but the earnest of a more perfect enjoyment still of what now we know in part and see through a glass darkly. Our present Christian joys have the stamp of eternity on them.
James. Yes, Sir; poor as our feelings are, we know that what makes us happy now will make us still more happy forever. We shall know then better what gives us our joy now. But He who has brought me to peace is the one who loves me, and whom I hope to see in glory.
N*. And did your mind get clear the last time as to purgatory?
James. It could not but be clear when once one knows Christ's precious blood cleanses from all sin. I had no thought that they had such strange notions that so deny Christ's work. It is dreadful. I did not understand all about the Fathers, but what sets the soul clear is the knowledge of Christ and His grace. I was thinking since, Sir (though there is nothing about purgatory in it), how the beautiful parable of the prodigal son sets all thoughts of it aside. How that parable would prevent one who really knew the grace of it from ever thinking of such a thing. However could the Father, when the poor prodigal had all his rags off and the best robe on, that is Christ Himself, put him in purgatory after. It is like putting Christ Himself there. And, then, I see plainly that once I leave this world I have not the flesh at all, so that I do not know what is to be purged away. Here, where I have it, I can be exercised, and sifted, and tried, and for my good, because the flesh is still here in me.
N*. You are quite right, James. It is a complete confusion between penal suffering and purifying. If it be really purifying it is a cruel thing to get it shortened by indulgences. If it be penal it is contrary to all the testimony of the Gospel.
James. What are indulgences?
N*. They are decrees of the Pope, by which, in virtue of the merits of Christ and the saints, he delivers souls in purgatory from a part or all of the punishment they have to go through.
Mrs. J. Dear, who would have thought of such things? Why, it is not Christianity at all, Sir.
N*. Surely it is not. I dare say we shall get upon this subject before we have done. It was the immediate occasion of the Reformation. They sold them in the most shameful, or shameless, way to get money to build St. Peter's, the magnificent cathedral at Rome.
As to the Fathers, James, you have no need to think of them. They are no authority for anything; and, indeed, contradict each other continually like other men, only there was more superstition and ignorance in them than in most cultivated persons now, with real piety in some; as to others, it is very doubtful if they had any. I have referred to them because it was necessary to meet what was alleged. And now that their doubts and contradictions are shown, we may dismiss them without passion and without fear. They have, indeed, been altered, and passages cast out by the Roman Catholics, but not so as much to affect such a mass of writings. But Rome has what is called an index expurgatory, by which some books are prohibited, and others are directed to be printed without such a passage, or changing it, or the like, when any passage militates against the doctrines of the Roman system. And this has been done.
James. Dear, what a crafty system.
N*. It is a system little known. They have published a kind of imitation of the Psalms, 150 of them in number, just like the Psalms, and with a general resemblance, but have put the Virgin Mary instead of the Lord.
Mrs. J. What wickedness. It is all planned so. I am glad, James, you knew what it was before you got drawn in.
James. So am I, I am sure; it is a mercy to be kept from it in any way, but more still when it is by knowing the grace of God, which makes me see not only that there are wrong things, but that the foundation of their whole system is wrong. They do not build on grace and redemption, but on man and works. That I see plainly. But here is M. Good day, Bill, sit down.
N*. Good day, M. We have waited to go on with the subject proposed till you came. We are to speak of the Word of God and of the Church. We can still take Milner, who, in a brief way, will say all that is to be said.
M. Yes, we must seek the right rule of faith, and that is the written and unwritten Word; the Church being the interpreter and judge. We must have a living judge of controversy, or there is no end to disputes.
N*. The thing to be ultimately judged is not doctrines, my good friend, but souls. And the difference is most serious. I am not going to avoid the other question, that is, the means of discovering the truth; but, while you profess to have the true church where alone salvation is, you have people in crowds who are lost, and none who know whether they are saved after all. But when you speak of judging what is the truth, your principle is wholly false. God does not judge of truth. He reveals it. Man is not to judge of truth, but, if God has revealed, he is bound on his peril to receive it. Men will be judged according to the truth they have before them. They that have sinned without law shall perish without law, and they that have sinned under law shall be judged by the law. If they have rejected Christ they are still more guilty. The Holy Ghost was to convict the world of sin, because they had not believed in Him, and if they did not they would die in their sins. If they do from the heart they are saved, at least if God's declaration is to be believed.
M. Saved; you mean hoped to be saved.
N*. I do not, they are not yet out of trial and temptation, but they are reconciled to God, have peace with Him, as Scripture speaks:-He has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our own works, but according to His own purpose and grace, 2 Tim. 1:99Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (2 Timothy 1:9). So Titus 3:55Not 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; (Titus 3:5), 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. They have eternal life.
M. That is, they hope to have it.
N*. Not at all. Of course, in all its fullness and glory they have not got it yet. But the Scripture says, "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 bath not life." Again, John the Baptist says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." What proves the Roman Catholic system to be so utterly false is that it teaches men as if the grace of God had not brought salvation at all. Men are just where they were if there was no Christ; they have to make their peace with God, whereas Christ has made peace by the blood of His cross. According to Romanism they have to gain eternal life, as the law required, "Do this, and thou shalt live." Christianity says he that hath the Son hath life.
M. And must not a man work to get life.
N*. Surely not. How can he work if he has not got it? He believes on Christ as a poor sinner, and has life in Him; and then works to serve God and glorify Him, and grow on in the life he has got. "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life," says Christ. Nothing is more false than supposing that no good works can be done unless we are to gain life by them. I should say none can be done till we have life. Do angels do good works?
M. Yes, of course they do.
N*. Do they do it to gain heaven?
M. Well, no, they are in heaven.
N*. What do they do it for, then?
M. Why, they are blessed beings, they do nothing else.
N*. Well, M., we can hardly say we do nothing else, but as to the motive it shows that there is another way of doing right besides gaining life and heaven by it. Besides, all real duties and right affections flow from the relationships we are already in. I mean this. If you were my servant it would be your duty to act and feel as such. James's children's duties and their right feelings flow from their being his children, and living in the consciousness that they are so. They have not, cannot have, such towards you and me, because they are not our children. So with a wife and every relation of life. Now, we must be really children of God before the duties of children can apply to us, and before we can have the affections suited to that place. We are children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and our duties and right affections flow from this, can have no existence till we are in. that relation. We have never to work to get into any true living relationship, for the duties cannot exist till we are in it; indeed, it is not possible in the nature of things. The Christian has duties, and has to cultivate holy affections, but it is because he is a child of God, and knows it. For he can have neither the feeling nor the conscience of his duty as a child till he knows he is such. We have difficulties and temptations to overcome, and God does encourage us by the reward of glory, the crown of life, but he never tells us to gain life by our works. The law, if indeed that can be said,
does. But we are all condemned on that ground, because we have not kept it. The gift of God is eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What are good works, M.?
M. Well, I suppose, works done purely out of love to God and our neighbor.
N*. Then you never can do any according to your system, because you do them to gain eternal life, to merit heaven for yourself.
M. But you would look for something above human nature.
N*. Surely, I should. I look for grace. Grace and life from Jesus Christ working within. He has saved by His death. The Roman Catholic system is not theoretically, perhaps, but practically the deadly heresy of Pelagianism.
James. What is that, Sir?
N*. Believing that there is strength in man to do good and merit life by his works, and though they talk of grace it is practically man's own efforts; there may be sacramental grace referred to, but no personal practical dependance on grace. The Roman Catholic system hides it under hard words, and distinguishes between grace of condignity, that is, what a man sufficiently deserves—merit in which the works deserve a reward for their own worth; and grace of congruity, what fits a man to receive though he be not worthy in the way of merit: but, in point of fact, a man merits eternal life by his own doings and efforts, which in principle and substance and verity is Pelagianism. Christ delivered the Old Testament saints, they say, out of limbo, and set us to keep the new law.
James. Well, I am sure I never had merit, or fitness, or anything, unless as a poor sinner is fit for grace, because he is one and wants it.
N*. But tell me, M. You believe that life is given, and pardon, too, in baptism, do you not?
M. Surely, I do.
N*. Very well, according to Rome we are born of God in it, and have remission of sin, original and all actual sins, if we have committed any. It cleanses from sin, makes us Christians and children of God. We are born of water and of the Spirit, and what a child has contracted by generation is cleansed by regeneration.
N*. And it never can be repeated.
M. Never
N*. Then they have received life?
M. Of course, they are regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost.
N*. Do you think any other sacrament confers life?
M. None.
N*. So again Rome teaches, We may lose grace but not faith, and it is true faith, though it be not living faith (Council of Trent vi. xxviii. 54, cap. xv. 46). The character imprinted by baptism can never be lost.
Note, then, if divine life be lost it never can be had again. And if life be not lost when man dies in mortal sin, a man may go to hell and yet have faith, as born of God, only no grace.
M. But life is lost by mortal sin, but there is the sacrament of penance to restore grace.
N*. I know you hold that. But a man is not born again by the sacrament of penance; so that if he has lost life he is ruined forever, for he cannot be baptized again; or lie must have the life still though he have lost grace—a very strange notion if it be the life of Christ; but quite consistent with going to hell in mortal sin though having faith. But this is what is taught in the Council of Trent.
But the matter really stands thus: The doctrine of catechisms and every Roman authority tell us that mortal sin, as the word indeed implies, is the death of the soul, deprives the soul of life or sanctifying grace which is the life of the soul. I take the words of one of many Catechisms " Why is it called mortal? Because it kills the soul, by depriving it of its true life which is sanctifying grace, and because it brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul." Another, " By destroying the life of the soul, which is the grace of God." Another, "that which killeth the soul in a spiritual manner, because it deprives us of the grace of God, which is the spiritual life of the soul." The two first are American, sanctioned each by a different prelate of New York, the last Irish, drawn up by the most Rev. Dr. Reilly. Now we are taught by the Council of Trent itself, That they are cleansed by regeneration from what they contracted by generation, referring to John 3. They are born again of water and the Spirit. They are frequently called born again (renati). And in the Catechism of the Council of Trent it is insisted that baptism cannot be repeated: "that this accords with the nature of the thing, and with reason is understood from the very idea of baptism which is a certain spiritual regeneration. As then, by virtue of the laws of nature we are generated and born but once, and as St. Augustine observes, `there is no returning to the womb, so, in like manner, there is but one spiritual generation, nor is baptism ever at any time to be repeated. Here though I might quote many authorities to the same effect, we have the highest assuring us that a man cannot be born twice, and hence he cannot be baptized twice. But then if his soul is killed by mortal sin, deprived of life, what is to be done? He cannot be born again. It is all very well to talk of forgiveness by the sacrament of penance only with increased trouble, and purgatory to boot; but where is life to be had? It is lost by mortal sin. No one pretends that it is given by the sacrament of penance. Its being given in baptism, is declared in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as we have seen, to be the reason why that sacrament cannot be repeated. No man can be born again twice. It is a fatal objection to the whole sacramental system of popery, fatal upon a fundamental point. Falsehood is always inconsistent and breaks down somewhere. Forgiveness may be talked of, justification regained, but the soul is killed, deprived of life, and cannot be born again. It is a curious part of the same system that baptism puts away all sins and all penalties, freely and absolutely, from a child who has none. Penance leaves a large and awful part, though forgiving them, on those who have. People who have no sins are cleared people; those who have are not, though reconciled to God. All this to a soul taught of God shows the folly of human inventions. Ah, M., to a soul that feels its need and looks to Christ, such darkness on vital points will never do. But I return to the point we were upon. God reveals truth, and man is bound to receive it at his peril. He does not judge, nor is there any one to judge what is truth. God has judged what is truth, since He has revealed it Himself. Nobody can judge about it after that. Men will be judged by it. "The word I have spoken to you the same shall judge you in the last day" (John 12:4848He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48).).
M. But have I not to ascertain the truth?
N*. You are responsible for receiving God's truth that He has revealed. When anything professes to be a revelation, I must of course first know that it is of God. For that I have a promise: Christ says; He that will do His will shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.
M. Well, we must ascertain, or know, whether it is a revelation of God, and for this we must have an infallible judge in order to know as a matter of faith whether it be so.
N*. It is a mere blasphemy to say so. God has given a revelation, and called upon me to believe. Is it necessary after this for some one to authorize me to believe? Then God's calling on me for faith by a revelation has no force: because, according to you, when God has spoken and claimed my faith, another must judge about it.
M. But supposing I do not receive it? How can you help a man's being a Socinian or an infidel?
N*. You cannot help it. Rome cannot help it, cannot give faith in the heart by authority;-but the man will be lost because he has made God a liar. But your notion excuses the Socinian and the infidel, because, according to you, though God has revealed the truth, they are not bound to believe without the church. The whole question lies there. Has a revelation which God has made to us authority over me—a claim upon my belief—without any judgment of man? Your system says it has not. We must have, you say, a tribunal to judge about it, that is to judge whether God's revelation has a claim on my soul. This is an outrage upon God. If you, M., came to me, and I say, " Your word I cannot receive till James authenticates it," it is quite clear I do not believe what you say because you have said it. Now, if I cannot believe God's revelation because He has said what is in it, and for no other reason, I do not believe God at all.
James. That is clear, Bill; God's word must have authority over us by itself or it has none at all.
M. But we must know that it is God's word.
N*. It is a sad thing you should call it in question, when you know it is so, but we will pursue the point. I never knew a Romanist who did not on this point take the ground of the infidel. Indeed, he has no other. For, if the word has direct authority over my conscience, all his argument about the church falls to the ground.
M. We'll take what Dr. Milner says: That the rule of faith or means of discovering Christ's religion must be secure and universal, and it is evident that he has left some rule by which those persons who seek it may with certainty find it. These, as Dr. Milner says, are fundamental maxims. Letter v.
N*. All Dr. Milner's book depends on them, I know and, indeed he admits it; but I stop you at once, here, by saying that, as his book does all depend on this, all is totally false. What do you mean by establishing a religion on earth, and then having a rule of faith or means of discovering it? If Christ has established a religion, there is nothing to discover. And, further; a rule of faith and a means of discovery are totally different things, and the confusion of these two is the source of all the sophistry of the book. How did Christ establish a religion on earth?
M. Why, by His own teaching, and the teaching Of the Apostles.
N*. Quite right. And who judged of their doctrine so that men might discover the true religion? Who was the living judge?
M. Why there could be none, they must believe Christ and the Apostles.
N*. Then all Dr. Milner's and your theory about a living judge is false. There were what we may call ecclesiastical authorities then. The scribes and pharisees sat in Moses' seat, and they were all against God's testimony by Christ. But men were bound to receive what Christ said, and the same of the Apostles, because they said it. Now that is always true.
M. Yes, but they were alive to say it.
N*. They were; but has what they said lost its authority now they are dead? So far from that, that the Bereans searched the Scriptures to know if Paul's preaching was according to them, and they are commended for it, and therefore many of them believed. The Scriptures were an authority to judge of an Apostle's teaching whether it were of God, that is when he first came, to know if what he said were really of God. And when the rich man is described as praying that Lazarus might be sent to his brothers to warn them, the Lord answers—They have Moses and the prophets (that is their writings), let them hear them, for if they believe not their writings how shall they believe my words. We have no need to say what the authority of Christ's words is for all of us, but as an instrument of authority the Lord puts writings before words. But the truth is, the condition of Christians—and it is with those professedly so we have to do—was exactly the same as now. The Apostles sent the writings we have to different Christians to whom they had been particularly blessed, or published them for general use. Were Christians not to receive these writings as having authority?
M. Of course they were.
N*. And so are we. Now supposing at the first the Jews had waited for the Church to sanction the Lord, or the Jews or Gentiles to sanction the Apostles, to discover the true religion what would have happened?
M. Why, there was no Church.
N*. Quite so; where Christ taught and the Apostles preached there was none, and there never would have been. That is faith in the word goes before the church, not faith in the Church before the word. Without faith in the word there never would have been any church at all:-and, in point of fact, the religious authorities when Christ was there did everything they could to hinder people believing in Christ; they believed in spite of them. And so it has really been as to Rome. But further. When the Apostles wrote epistles to the churches or general epistles—were the churches to wait for then to be sanctioned by others, some church authority, in order to receive, believe and obey them?
M. Of course not. If the Apostles wrote, they were bound to believe and obey.
N*. And so are we. Was there any reference to any church authority in order to their receiving them?
M. No; they were bound to receive them; how could there be church authority about the Apostles when the Lord sent them, and they were the highest authority in it.
N*. All right; and so are we bound to receive what they have written for the same reason. But there is another point. Were they addressed to a clergy who were to receive, and interpret them, or to all the faithful? That is a material point for us to settle.
M: It is; and I can't say exactly. I have not the Bible just at my finger's ends.
N*. You could not be where you are if you had, M., I would affectionately urge you to read it and see for yourself what these blessed servants of our Lord and Master, the Son of God, have said, and His own blessed words too. There cannot but be a blessing with it if done humbly trusting in God's grace. I remember a case in Ireland where a Testament had been torn up and the leaves thrown to the winds; a poor man found one of the leaves and picked it up. He could read, and saw, "And Jesus said," "and Jesus answered and said," "And Jesus said," and so on. He said to himself, What! has the blessed Lord said so many things and I did not know them? Struck by these simple but solemn words, "Jesus said," he went off to the neighboring town and bought a Testament, was converted, believed what Jesus said, and was happy in a known Savior. But you may say, How did he know it was true that Jesus said these things? Well, God guides the humble, simple soul. Jesus had said it, and His word had power over his soul by grace. But, as I have related to you one history, I will tell you another. I was in a cabin in Ireland where I was known, and began speaking to the brother-in-law of the man of the house about the Scripture; his niece, a young woman, who was present, said, "But they tell me, Sir, that is a bad book, that the devil wrote it." She was very ignorant, could not read. I said, "That is a shocking blasphemy. [I know they excuse themselves when any intelligent person is there by saying, It is only because of the false translation; however, so it passed.] But I will not reason with you, but read you a bit, and you shall tell me yourself if the devil wrote it." I read to her what are called the Beatitudes: "And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." I then said, " Well, what do you think? Did the devil write that?" "No, Sir," she said, "the devil never wrote that; that came from nothing but the mouth of God." The word of God had laid hold of her; she lived and died most happy, dying three years after of a fever in an hospital. That is, the word of God proves its own truth and power to the soul. But to return to our point. I will help you. None are addressed to what can be called in the modern term clergy at all save three: two to Timothy and one to Titus. These three were addressed to those specially engaged in the service of Christ. The rest are addressed to all the Christians either of a locality, or in general, the elders among them in Peter being noticed in their place, among the rest, and the bishops and deacons along with all the rest in Paul's to the Philippians.
Thus that to the Romans, "To all that be in Rome beloved of God, saints called." Here you could not tell from the Epistle if there were such a thing as elder or bishops. 1 Cor. "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in. Christ Jesus, saints called, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." I suppose that all saints, and there were many ignorant ones, ought to have received and obeyed the Apostle's teaching. Here, too, we have not a hint about any elders. The receiving the Apostle's orders was a test of the spirituality of their state: "If any be spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord;" and so John, says, "He that is of God heareth us." In 2 Cor. it was to all the saints which were in all Achaia, the province in Greece where Corinth was. The Epistle to the Galatians is addressed to the churches of Galatia. Here the whole body of saints is addressed too. I need not notice every Epistle because it is only to repeat the same thing, they are addressed to all the faithful. I may notice an expression in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, which shows it in a distinct manner. Paul says at the end of it, "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read by all the holy brethren." Colossians and Laodicea were to exchange epistles, and they were to be read in the churches. Peter's Epistles were addressed to all the dispersed residing in various provinces. In John's, we get if possible a stronger evidence. He distinguishes the Christians, while addressing all in general, into classes of fathers, young men, and little children, and writes more special words to these last, pressing on them their competency in virtue of having the Holy Ghost to understand everything, and says, though warning and teaching them with all affection, they had not need of any one to do so. And in his second Epistle he writes to a lady and desires her to judge those who came teaching and preaching by the doctrine they brought. Thus we have ample evidence that the Scriptures were addressed not to the teaching body (with the exception of three epistles of Paul, which, however, are full of instruction to all, because he tells Timothy and Titus how all ought to act), but by the teaching body to the mass of the faithful. If Rome has reduced the faithful to a state of ignorance which makes them incapable of it, the guilt is on her shoulders. It is a proof that she cannot enlighten them. The only thing to do is for them to go back to the Scriptures which she has practically deprived them of.
M. But they are written in Greek or Hebrew. What can the unlearned do? How can they now use this rule, or means of discovering Christ's religion?
N*. This is another fallacy. The means of discovering Christ's religion (and we are speaking now of places where the profession of Christianity is established), and a rule of faith are not at all the same thing. A minister preaches, a mother teaches her child, a schoolmaster in a school, a friend—in a word, the means of communicating truth or leading a person to discover it are various. The Scriptures may be the direct and blessed means in many cases, but any Christian, and in particular, parents and ministers, may be and are the regular instruments in God's hands of communicating the truth contained in the word to souls, but none of these are the rule of faith. Dr. Milner admits that this is so, as regards the heathen, that is, that his principle does not hold good, but then, as he says, there is a special grace accorded. I admit the special grace,—there is never any good or blessing without it; but I understand very well what Dr. Milner is about too. It is quite evident that in the case of heathens the church has no authority, for they as heathens do not own it; they must in any case become Christians first. Thus we find that in this case the word of God has power and authority without the church. Men discover the true religion without the authority of the church. This is a grand difficulty for Dr. Milner, because after all, when Christianity has really to be discovered, as in the case of a heathen, it is discovered by the power of the word through grace, without the Church at all. That is, in a word, that in the only real case where the true religion is discovered it is discovered without the authority of the Church. Now for communicating the knowledge of Christ's religion where it is professed, there are similar means, as I have said, ministers, parents, and the like. And do you mean to say that special grace is for heathens to receive the word, but that there is none needed, and none given for professing Christians. It is needed for every man. But remark further this way of discovering Christ's religion is not a rule of faith. A minister, a priest, as you call him, is not a rule of faith, a friend or a mother is surely not a rule of faith. Yet they are the means in an ordinary way of the discovering, or more properly of the reception of Christ's religion. Now the confusion of these things is the source of all the fallacy, because the means of discovering need not be infallible—need not be in the sense here stated secure nor universal. In point of fact, unless when Scripture is the means, it never is. On the contrary, it is adapted to the state and capacity of the person evangelized or taught. A rule of faith must be secure, but as it is not the means of communicating Christ's religion (though it may be such a means), it is not as a rule required to be adapted to such universal communication. It subsists in the form in which it was originally given to be referred to. Now these two things we have without the authority of the Church at all,—Apostles, ministers, parents and others communicating Christ's religion according to the language or capacity of hearers and learners;—and we have the Scriptures the fixed and unchanged rule to which all teaching is to be referred. And note this well,—If the truth contained in Scripture be not received, if a man remain an infidel, or become. a confirmed heretic, the authority of the Church is of no use. 'For such do not acknowledge it. She must in result leave them where they are unless she burn them as Rome indeed has done by hundreds and thousands,—or banish and imprison them. But that is only copying the heathen who did the same thing.
I admit then the ministry to communicate the truth, and even a parent or any other. I admit the need of grace, but I say that you will be lost, and condemned if when God has spoken you do not bow to it, if there were no Church at all. In point of fact, there was and could be none when first the word of God was announced, and men were bound to receive it at their peril. "If our gospel be hid," says the Apostle, "it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them:" so the Lord—"he that believeth not is condemned already." Indeed, as I have said, those who stood in the place of authority then opposed the word. All who have to receive the religion of Christ as a new truth necessarily receive it without the authority of the Church. They are Jews, infidels, or heathens, and acknowledge no such authority. If I turn to Christians by profession, they have 'hot to discover the truth of Christianity, for they believe it; what is needed is that they should understand the truth, and that it should have power over their hearts and lives, and grace gives that, not the Church. And, moreover, the epistles and gospels were addressed to the body of Christians in general by those who were gifted of God, as Paul, Peter, and the rest employed by God to write them. And those who received them were bound to receive and believe them, and to understand them and be taught by them. That there is progress in spiritual understanding is readily admitted.
Thus the whole theory of Romanism is a false one.
Their analogy of a. living judge, which they all make so much of, is none at all; a judge decides a cause by the law, not whether the law is authentic or not.
He could not say,—I receive the law on the authority of any one, judges or others. He receives the law because it is the law, because the legislator has so prescribed. So the Christian; he receives the revelation of God, because it is His revelation, and for no other reason. A spiritual Christian may be more enlightened in applying the word of God to any given case (a small part of the use of Scripture) as a judge may; but neither of them give authority, but only application to that whose authority is employed. The Church was providentially charged with taking care of the Scriptures when they were written, just as anyone may take charge of my father's will, but he gives no authority to it. Its being my father's will gives it its authority. The Scriptures were committed to the whole Church of God. The only difference as to the Romanist body is that they have been unfaithful to the trust as regards the Old Testament, and pretended to authenticate as Scripture what confessedly is not Scripture at all. Her own famous doctor, who translated the Old Testament for her, and whose translation she receives as the authentic Scriptures, though but a translation, declares that the Church did not receive the books called apocryphal. Rome is unfaithful in this as in all else. God has not permitted her to be so as to the New Testament, but where she could be unfaithful she has been so. And you will please remember, moreover, that your rule is as much
Greek, Hebrew (in your case I must add Latin) as ours. The written Word is the same for both, only that you have only a translation, and your unwritten one is Latin. What you have in anyone's mother tongue is mere teaching, as ours may be, not a rule of faith, not secure, for we have seen there are different lists of mortal sins, and even as to the written Word you have a confessedly false list of books. You have added what the Fathers even say is not to be taken for a rule of faith.
M. But what are we to receive as a rule, if it is not the written and unwritten Word, and the Church as interpreter?
N*. The written word of God is the only rule. It has divine authority. The other two parts I reject altogether, that is tradition and the Church.
M. But the Church was never to fail, nor the gates of hell prevail against her. What do you make of that?
N*. I make nothing of it, I believe it, and bless God for it with all my heart. In spite of all the waywardness and wickedness of man, Christ maintains what he builds, and will maintain it till He receives it into glory. And it is maintained. Rome Papal, as Rome heathen, has done her best to extinguish and put out this light; but she has failed and must fail. She seemed to succeed, and may apparently, in large measure, succeed again, for it is announced in Scripture that there shall be perilous days in the last time, a form of godliness denying the power; but as God had reserved 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, when even the prophetic eye of Elijah could not see one but himself, so God has in the darkest times, times confessed by your own Popish writers to be times of shame and darkness, preserved a witness to Himself that no strength or subtlety of Satan, with all the power of Rome at his back, could ever suppress or extirpate. I recognize not the Church of Rome, or any other particular professing body, but the whole Church to be the dwelling-place of God, by the Holy Ghost, until Christ comes and takes the saints to Himself, and that what is called Christendom stands in a particular relationship to God by its profession, and it will be judged as His house. But the Scripture has warned us that evil would come in, and perilous times come, with the form of piety (2. Tim. 3); and the apostle Paul charges the man of God to cling to the Scriptures when the professing Church should have gone all wrong. He tells us (Acts 20:2929For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. (Acts 20:29)) that grievous wolves would come in; that of the Church itself perverse men would arise; but never hints at Apostles, their successors, or the clergy as a resource, but, on the contrary, commends them to God and the word of His grace as able to build them up, and give them an inheritance among them that are sanctified. That is, he warns us that the outward professing Church would go all wrong, so that the true servant of God would have to fly to the Scriptures. The mystery of iniquity was already working, and note, the Apostle's words exclude all idea of his having a successor. He knows that after HIS departure all will go wrong. How so, if another like himself would succeed him? So Peter sees the hour of his departure near, and takes care that they should have the truths he taught always in remembrance, and so writes his epistle (2 Peter 1:12-1512Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. 13Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me. 15Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. (2 Peter 1:12‑15)). Thus the Apostles foresaw the danger and difficulty; and Paul prophecies that all would go on badly, and evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, and instead of referring to the Church as securing the truth, he states that it will go all wrong, so that at last there will be an apostasy, or falling away (2 Thess. 2), and both he and Peter refer to the Scriptures as the means of being guarded in the truth. The evil is come, and has ripened; and we do refer, as the Apostles told us, to the Scriptures. You tell me divisions have arisen. I admit it, and admit the evil of it. But divisions have arisen with Scriptures and clergy and all: the clergy have not hindered it more than the Scriptures; they have been its authors. Rome is one of the divisions, a large one no doubt, but the worst of all, so that she hardly merits to be reckoned as a part of the Catholic Church at all since the Council of Trent. But admitting that she be, she is just one part, and the worst part by far. Numbers make nothing when the question of the Church is concerned. Christ speaks of a little flock (Luke 12:3232Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:32)), to whom He gives the kingdom, so that there being millions would rather prove it was not that flock. And when Rome had it all her own way in many countries (for she never had it everywhere, far from it, nor in the greatest part of Christendom), she could not help sects. She slaughtered and killed thousands and thousands to put them down; burned and hanged, and used every atrocity imaginable to put down whatever did not bow to her, but by her conduct proved herself not to be the Church of God but the seat of Satan, and thus made natural conscience revolt on one hand; while on the other the plants of God's planting throve in spite of her, and Europe was overrun by the hunted witnesses of Christ, while Rome disgraced herself; below even natural conscience, by breaking openly and solemnly plighted faith, and teaching men that they ought to do so, and not keep faith with heretics, and acted on it, hypocritically pretending to deliver them to the secular arm, and pursuing with relentless cruelty all who held the truth. She invented tortures, and established the Inquisition, to destroy all that had divine life. I have said she seemed to have reduced all to silence, when, after a secret working of the truth (particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, Bohemia, and Moravia) her security in wickedness led her to such a course of conduct as made all blaze out again more violently than ever; and now, taking all professing Christendom in, she is a minority in population, and maintains her former place only in her persistence and growth in errors.
M. But she is the true Catholic Church.
.N. Who says so?
M. Everyone admits it.
N*. Far from it; the majority of professing Christendom condemn her as a dreadful departure from the true standing of the Church of Christ. Many count her wholly apostate.
James. But, Bill, you used to say that your Church was the universal Church, and the oldest; and that all the millions of Christians, except just England that Henry VIII. turned away to get rid of his wife he did not like, belonged to it.
M. And so they do.
N*. We will speak of Henry VIII. in a minute. But as to the pretended Catholic Church, all their assertions are unfounded. I admit that numbers prove nothing, but they impose on the imagination, and hence only I notice this. The majority of professing Christians do not belong to Rome. There are something under 100 millions of Protestants, and I suppose 60 millions Greeks, besides Armenians and Jacobites in the East, whose numbers are not exactly known, but of which there must be a few millions, so that in rough round numbers there are, giving the largest margin, some 130 millions connected with Rome, and some 170 millions separate from it. Hence there is no pretension of Catholicity. As to antiquity, it is beyond all controversy that Eastern Christendom is more ancient than Rome. Strange to say, the Church was not founded at Rome by an apostle, though Paul was in prison there, not in his free apostolic labor; that he never was. But we know from the Epistle to the Romans that there were a number of Christians there before he arrived. We are a little anticipating what comes under the head of proofs of the true Church. But facts dispel many illusions, so that we may reason more freely when the imagination is undeceived.
James. Well, I am glad to hear all this. I know numbers don't prove truth, of course. We must have, we all admit, a divine foundation for our faith; but it acts on one's feelings to think one is going against all
Christians in the world, and I see it is nothing of the sort, and I know from Scripture that Christianity did not begin at Rome.
N*. If we were to go by numbers, I suppose we should be Buddhists. They constitute, I believe, by far the most numerous religion in the world. The Mahometans count by many millions. I do not know how many, but I dare say some sixty millions. They own God, and Christ to be a prophet and judge of quick and dead, but not as Son of God. They are spreading rapidly in Africa through having the schools in their hands, and the prohibition for any Mahometan to make a slave of another. The Brahminical religion counts some 100
millions of votaries, other heathens, perhaps, over 200 millions. I attach no importance to exactitude in numbers, my object being only to dispel the idea of the Catholic or universal character of Rome—to disabuse the imagination. But that it may not seem a loose boast, in rough round numbers I count them thus: -
Romanists
Protestants
France
33,000,000
Great Britain
26,000,000
Austria
30,000,000
Germany, including Prussia
22,000,000
Italy
21,000,000
Austria
4,000,000
Spain
17,000,000
France
2,000,000
Germany out of
Holland
2,500,000
Austria
8,000,000g
Switzerland
2,000,000
Holland
1,000,000
Sweden
4,000,000
Belgium
3,500,000
Denmark
2,000,000
Poland
4,000,000
Russia
3,000,000
Switzerland
1,000,000
United States
26,000,000
United States
2,500,000
Great Britain
4,000,000
South America
8,000,000
TOTAL
133,000,000
TOTAL
93,500,000
Besides this, there is Canada, the West Indies, and a scattered population, which cannot very much affect the balance either way. The main numbers are pretty nearly exact; were there five millions wrong in either, it would not affect the question we are considering. Then between Turkey, the Austrian Possessions, Russia and, the East, the Greeks must number some sixty millions, besides smaller but ancient bodies. So that Christendom not connected with Rome numbers some 160 or 170 millions; Rome some 130. That is a strange way of being Catholic. Catholic means you know, James, universal.
That the Greek churches in Asia are more ancient than Rome, as James has said, Scripture itself proves. Rome was the last founded of which we have any original history, and Greeks, Nestorians and Jacobites were all separate from Rome, the earliest in the fifth, the latest in the ninth century, and have their succession too. But having got rid of this delusion, let us turn to the rule of faith. We need not consider the first false rule, Private inspiration, for save a few Quakers no one alleges such a rule. Only
we must, on the other hand be very careful to guard against Romanist infidelity as to the action of the Holy Ghost. They practically deny the aid and succor of the Holy Ghost given to every humble believer. They ridicule it (as I know by experience) to throw men helplessly on their clergy. Now this is the worst kind of Pelagianism, the denial of the assistance of grace. The faithful Christian is assisted of God to understand the Scriptures as he is to walk as a Christian.
The help and teaching of the Holy Ghost, and the written word are not two rules of faith. The Scriptures are the one sure rule, and the Holy Ghost He who works in the believer to enable him to use that rule, and not merely as a rule, but as the food and edification of his soul. And in this the contents of Scripture are adapted to the progress the soul makes in divine things and its state in every respect. It is applied by the Holy Ghost to the conscience and heart of the humble Christian who owns his need of the grace of God, and looks for it according to his need. The person who denies this is an heretical denier of the grace and goodness of God. Mark this, because Dr. Milner, who I suppose from his book is an unbeliever as to this, carefully leaves it all out. If men go on presumptuously, without depending on the grace of God, they will err as to Scripture and as to everything else, whether they call themselves Catholic or Protestant. Do you deny, M., the need a Christian has of the grace of God, and the goodness and faithfulness of God in giving it, and the gracious operations of the Spirit of God in the Christian's heart, as it is said, "The meek shall He guide in judgment, and the meek shall He learn His way; " or, as the Lord said, speaking of His people, "They shall be all taught of God."
M. No, of course I do not; no good Catholic does; but that can only be in the true Church.
N*. In one sense I quite agree with that. It is only in the true Church, though we may not yet be agreed what the true Church is. But this same gracious operation must take place to bring a person into the true,
Church when he is outside it, and, to help him when he is in it.
M. Well, I do not deny that.
N*. I am glad of it. Only this is all overlooked by Dr. Milner. He does not dream of any help from God. But not only does he leave out the gracious actings of the Holy Ghost in believers, but he leaves out all ministry. He will talk of tradition, and of the authority of the Church, meaning, however, the clergy; but the ministry of those called of God in the Church to teach and edify, he overlooks altogether, or even of parents who in their place have a ministry, and are called upon to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. People are not called upon to discover a religion. They are not called upon to take up a Bible, printed by the king's printer, as Dr. Milner says (Letter 9). That may happen, and has often, very often been blessed, but it is not the regularly appointed way of learning the truth. If even, as may be the case in the neglected masses of mankind, be they high or low, rich or poor, that is the case, they have not to judge of the book; they may judge right or judge wrong, but if that is all nothing is done. If the word of God is to profit them, it must judge them, and have its place in their hearts and consciences. We are superior to the thing we judge. As long as we are in spirit superior to God's word, it is not God's word at all really to us. We must be subject to it, receive it as it is in truth the word of God; to have life and edification by it. As the truth of God is in the word, or rather as it is the truth, of course the Holy Ghost can use the Scriptures to convince of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, and blessed be God, thousands of souls have thus found life and peace; but that is not our subject, but what is the sure rule of faith when we do profess Christ to be our Lord. There is a ministry of the word and parental responsibility in the Church of God. God alone can give efficacy to either by His grace, but men are not left to discover a religion. Christianity is the activity of God to communicate the knowledge of the truth and grace which saves and gives eternal life, the knowledge of Christ. This is carried out by the ministry of the word and parental care, but that is not a rule of faith, but an appointed means of grace. This the Roman. Catholic professes to believe as well as Protestants. None pretends a parent or even a priest is infallible. The question is—supposing men who profess Christianity teach differently, what is the rule by which a sincere person may know with certainty what the truth in that matter is. We say the rule of faith is the written word of God. You say the Bible and tradition taken together, or the word of God written and unwritten, and that besides the rule itself Christ has provided in his holy Church a living, speaking judge to watch over it, and explain it in all matters of controversy. That is, that, in fact, the word written or unwritten is no rule for him at all; he must submit to what is told him by the living judge. If the judge pronounces and decides the matter, that is the rule for him who has to submit to it; he cannot refer from the judge to the law.
I need not take notice of Dr. Milner's objection (Letter 8:1) that if Christ had meant to make the Scriptures the rule, He would have written that book. It is irreverent, pretending to say what Christ ought to have done; but, besides, it contradicts his own theory, because he admits the written word, with unwritten tradition to complete it, to be the rule; and, if this be so, Christ has given for a rule what He did not write. The traditions as to the motives for writing the Gospels are too vague and too late in the history of the Church to require any notice; and, as Dr. Milner adds, no doubt the evangelists were moved by the Holy Ghost, which is what we believe; I have no controversy with him on this head. His only attempt is to show that they are insufficient; what has he to add? This point will come in after, when the same subject is spoken of in treating of the true rule.
I have only to notice the objection of differences of opinion among the reformers who acknowledge Scripture. This is merely to catch people's minds. No rule can hinder differences, so long as the human mind works. The doctrine of the Greeks differs from the doctrines of Rome, of Nestorians from both, of Jacobites from all, of Protestants, from the system they have abandoned. This only proves that the Church has failed in hindering divisions and maintaining unity. We have four great bodies of which the latest formed has been for nearly a thousand years separate from Rome and older than she, besides Anglicanism and the other Protestants. The divisions existed before Protestants were there. Rome is only one of these divided parts, not the oldest, not so numerous as all the rest taken together. With these divisions, the question is what is the rule to judge which is the right one. Not the authority of one giving itself as the rule. That is what Rome does. Who can trust that. The Scriptures were before all these divisions and questions; are given by inspired writers; are God's revelation of what was from the beginning, as God instituted it.
Divisions prove the infirmity of human nature, only that it is much more excusable in Protestants just coming out of the dark obscurity and superstition men were immersed in during the middle ages, than in Greece and Rome whose common starting point was pure Christianity. And men must not suppose differences do not exist among Romanists. The Dominicans resisted with all their force the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (now made by the present Pope a matter of faith); so that there was the most important body of Romanists (till the Jesuits arose,) the inventors and directors of the Inquisition, judges thus of heretical pravity, unsound on what is now declared to be an article of faith. The Augustinians believe in predestination. The Roman Catholic priests deny it. Nay, so far did these disputes go, that the Dominicans in the seventeenth century charged the Jesuits with maintaining the idolatry of the Chinese in their missions in China. For years the inquiry was pursued before the Pope, and the practices sanctioned by the Jesuits at last condemned by Pope Clement XI. in 1704. The decree was mitigated in 1715. Now, the allowance of heathen idolatry in Christians was a much graver difference than the details on which Protestants differ while agreeing in fundamental truth. Again, on the point of authority, which you consider so important, the gravest differences exist. The famous four articles by which the Gallican church defended its liberties were condemned as earnestly as possible by the Papal advocates. In these the synod of French bishops declares that the decrees of the Council of Constance, which maintained the authority of general councils as superior to that of the Pope, are approved and ratified by the Gallican church—and that the decisions of the Pope are not infallible in points of faith unless they be accompanied by the consent of the Church. Now here is an all—important difference on the subject of authority and infallibility. Our question will bring us back to this. I only notice here that differences are not confined to Protestants. It is a noticeable circumstance that it was the same man Bossuet, who wrote a crafty book on the variations of Protestants, who led the way in this important variation among Romanists, and defended it against the attacks of Ultramontanes as they are called—that is, the extreme defenders of the Pope's claims. Ultramontane principles prevail now, but to this day Gallican principles, which deny the Pope's infallibility, hold their ground in France and Germany. Disputes and discussions belong to the infirmity of human nature. Where there is freedom for it, it appears more openly, and so it has amongst Protestants. In Rome, though violent, it is more connected with intrigues, and less exposed to view. Another point insisted on by Dr. Milner, which has nothing to do with the rule of faith, but which I may do well to take up as it is noticed, is this, that sovereign princes have acted more in the Reformation than theologians. The truth is, that sovereign princes, long oppressed in the rights and authority which God confers on the magistrate, profited by the public movement, brought about by the faith of individuals though long prepared by the working of God's Spirit, to throw off the unjust authority of the Pope. This was according to God's will, who gives to the sovereign his authority, and brought about by His providence. With this the rule of faith has surely nothing to do. It was the righteous re-assumption by the civil magistrate of an authority to which the Pope had no title. Whether they abused this is nothing to the purpose. Civil statutes had been passed constantly against the absorption of lands into the hands of monks and others—mortmain as it was called. They evaded them by the introduction of uses, that is, when it was forbidden to a monastery to hold lands, they were given to a layman to hold it to their use, to the peril of their souls if they did not; and then when this was condemned by the statute of uses, they evaded that by what are called trusts. All this was roughly swept away in England at the Reformation—the land partly given to courtiers, partly employed for education. But what all this has to do with the rule of faith it would be hard to tell. Superstition had given the lands to monks, and when fresh light broke up the superstition, they were taken away again, and the monasteries which had become a plague to every country by luxury and wickedness were suppressed. As to Henry the Eighth, he threw off the Pope's authority, and he was right. Why should a prelate at Rome govern England? As to his being a Protestant, he was anything but that. He had six articles drawn up, amongst which was the doctrine of transubstantiation, the keystone of Romanism, and persecuted bitterly those who did not submit, all who held the Protestant faith, as the Pope had done before him.
James. 1 do not see what all this has to do with the authority of the Scriptures.
N. It has none. It is merely advanced by Romanists to excite prejudice against Protestantism.
M. And do you not charge the Popes and others with wickedness?
N*. Well, as yet we have not spoken of it. But this has a just place when we speak of Popes and the mass of prelates, because Romanists pretend to find the Church, and infallibility, and authority over other men's faith and consciences, in these wicked men; whereas, no Protestant dreams of taking Henry VIII. or the Protector Somerset as an authority. They will be judged in the great day like others; and their acts judged like other men's now.
James. That does make all the difference in the world, M. Save as I may mourn over other's evil, what is it to me what Henry VIII. or any such person was? He has nothing to do with my faith. We are talking of Scripture, and that is what you must speak of.
N*. As to fanaticism, I answer again, that it is one of the infirmities of our poor nature, but it has been in all ages, Papal or Protestant. The wicked fanaticism of the Brethren of the Free Spirit, in the palmist days of Popery, was worse than any fanaticism that ever arose out of Protestantism, and lasted longer. But what has this to do with the rule of faith. The Protestant princes put down Munzer by force of arms because he armed himself against them. The Popes nearly suppressed the Brethren of the Free Spirit by punishment and burning them. All this proves nothing but the sadness of man's history. There is another assertion which, by a seeming analogy, is more plausible. That there are judges for the law, and a common or unwritten law in England; and so for the divine law, both of these, too (Letter x.) The first point for which this unwritten law is shown to be needed is that I cannot receive laws till I own the authority of the legislature. This shows the danger of analogies. There is but one lawgiver, and I may add one judge. God Himself is the legislator and judge, too; but now let us speak of legislature. Is not God Himself the lawgiver, the authority?
M. Of course He is.
N*. Well, that question, then, is settled. There is, indeed, another important point which you seem to
forget—natural conscience, the knowledge of good and evil. Now I do not deny that this may be sadly darkened and corrupted. Still, there is a conscience, and Christianity having brought in light, natural conscience is enlightened, and has a means of judging, though it may not even be aware of how it has acquired it. Thus, if money be given practically to allow sin, or for forgiveness of sin, or to commute for humbling penances and a tax on particular crimes as to how much should be paid;—if the clergy was forbidden to marry, and then money was taken by their superiors for allowing them to live with a woman not their wife, the common law of natural conscience overrules the pretended authority of the Church, and tears all sophistry to pieces by its just horror.
James. But surely the Romanists have never done or allowed this.
N*. Indeed they have; it is just as much a matter of history as that Rome exists.
James. Why, M., what do you say to that.
M. It is only relaxing the temporal punishment due to sin.
N*. It is (Lett. 42) an actual remission by God Himself of part of the temporal punishment due; and further, does it not take out of purgatory or shorten the stay there?
M. Yes, that is, the temporal punishment due to sin.
N*. Is it not by virtue of the surplus of merits of Christ and the saints?
M. Yes.
N*. Does Dr. Milner deny that indulgences were sold?
M. No, he does not.
N*. He does not; he says (Lett. 42), "avarice has done everything bad;" but yet a further question. Who sold them, and by what authority were they sold? Was it not the Church's, or, if you please, the Pope's.
M. Well, I suppose it must have been.
N*. To be sure it must, and was, and they were farmed out to the Fuggers, who were famous bankers, to whom the sale was given for so much by the Archbishop of Mentz, who was charged with it, and committed to the Dominican order. So that the Roman Catholics' accusation against Luther is that it was his jealousy, as an Augustine monk, against the Dominican order about this which made him break with the Pope.
James. Well, M., this is dreadful. This never could be the true Church, the Church that the Lord Jesus
established, nor have His authority. I understand what Mr. _____ means by conscience now, for all the reasoning in the world could not persuade me that that comes from God, or that those are from God who do it. And I see you cannot deny that what you call the Church did it.
N*. He could not, because it is a notorious piece of history. It was the immediate cause of the Reformation. Luther protested against it, because it destroyed all morality, and, in point of fact, they did forgive all sins (i.e. the punishment of them, which was what people cared about) past and future, so that in one case a person bought the indulgence and then waylaid the priest and took all the money he had collected.
M. But people must be in a state of grace to profit by it.
N*. *A queer state of grace a man must be expected to be in when those that expect it are selling him remission of chastisement for sin on the part of God; besides the sacraments may have settled all the state of grace for him.
No, no, that is what I say, natural conscience breaks through all this sophistry. At the time. of the Reformation the corruptest thing in the world was the Roman system. Do you deny what is perfectly notorious, that the corruption of clergy, monks, and all, had arisen to such an inconceivable pitch in the fifteenth century that the natural conscience rose up in clamor against it, and helped to bring on the Reformation?
M. Well, I do not know the details of history, but I know the Church is holy, and always was. It is one of the marks of the true Church.
N*. Well, I will give you some details as far as one can venture. We shall touch on this mark. But I agree with you, it is a mark of the true Church, and you shall judge whether the Roman body can be the true Church, though the point we are on now is to show that the common law of natural conscience, even, claims its rights against such horrors. The practice of concubine age among priests with those to whom they were not married was so universal that it was forbidden by the Council of Paris in 1429, which says their example had corrupted. all the laity. But in vain; in the middle of the Same century it was decreed at Breslau that they should pay ten florins if they did, and indeed the people of the parish very often would have it so to prevent more universal corruption. The truth is, it was universal, and so among monks, and even unnatural crimes. The witnesses to these are all of the Roman body, and a layman complains what was a sin for laymen was none for the clergy, and what was a sin for the clergy was none for the laity; for if a clergyman had a wife of his own it was a sin, if a layman had it was not; but if a clergyman had a hundred and sixty or a hundred and seventy, none of which were a wife, it was no sin, but if a layman had it was. And the ablest and most respectable Romanist doctor of his day who sought reformation, Gerson, declares if a monk lives in uncleanness he does not violate his vow provided he do not marry, only he is guilty of sin. One remedy, he says, is to do it as little as possible and do a great many good works, and take care it should be in secret, not on festivals or in holy places, and with unmarried persons. In truth, the shameless lives of the clergy or, as Adolphus, Bishop of Merseburg, expresses it, " the licentious unmarried life of the clergy was before the eyes of all." I have only cited these general testimonies; to go further would be to enter into a sea of enormities horrible to go through. No doubt many a godly man cried out against it, and a reform in head and members was the universal outcry of natural conscience from laymen. And the councils of Constance and Basel tried to do something towards reforming the excessive licentiousness and wickednesses of the monasteries. But as soon as Constance had started a Pope, having deposed three, who were all reigning together; the chief one as guilty of everything that was horrible, there was an end of reformation, and the council at Basel was broken up by the then Pope under pretext of transferring it elsewhere; so that there were two councils at a time, one at Basel without a Pope, and another at Florence with a Pope; and the Council of Easel passed decrees against priests living with women without being married, and added that the bishops were not to hinder the severity of the decrees being enforced. A pretty plain proof of what took place. The result was that the excessive wickedness of the clergy brought about the Reformation, the immediate occasion being the sale of indulgences for sin. God -came in with an ancient truth in His grace, but the occasion of it, and what made men ready to receive it, was the revolt of the common law of conscience against the outrageous wickedness of the so-called Church.
James. Well, M.; what can you say to this; it is very shocking. Can you deny it?
N*. He cannot deny it. It is a matter of public notoriety, known to all acquainted with history, and proved by the outcry of Christendom, and the public acts of Synods to repress it, because it was grown so scandalous. The Reformation has partially moralized the Roman clergy where it has come; but only partially, and where it is not present the fatal obligation of celibacy is a source still of endless corruption. Now, conscience revolts against this, the true common law of man, if you please to talk of common law, which the Church is not, because it is confessedly a positive institution. Our Legislator there is God Himself, and there is a certain common law for man, namely, the knowledge of good and evil.
M. Yes; but you have no judge who is to decide on the matter when there is a difference.
N*. Have I not? In the first place conscience, as far it goes, decides at a man's peril what is right and what is wrong. And note here, though man may get light from God's revelation, yet as to a judge, God is, and will be the final judge, and the conscience must and is bound so to regard Him. Conscience is answerable to. God directly, and no man can come between the conscience and God so as to destroy the right of God. " Who art thou," says the Apostle, " that judgeth another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth." To come in between God and the conscience is not to touch man's rights but God's.
James. That is true, M. If my master bids me to do something in his own matters and you tell me to do
something else, you meddle with his right to command me, as much and more than with me. Conscience makes us subject to God, and not dare to disobey Him. We do want help and light for it, but it always looks to God as the authority that is over it, and it cannot, dare not, look away from Him to another, because that sets aside God. It would no longer be subject to Him.
M. All very true, no doubt; but if God has set any one to judge, as the King does the judges, you must abide by their decision.
N*. That is all well to decide about property or crimes, and to keep peace among men. But that is absolutely impossible as to conscience, because God has a judgment to come in which He will pronounce originally and finally as to guilt; in which He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the secrets of the heart. Therefore the Apostle warns to judge nothing before the time till God does that, God having reserved this to Himself. There can be no judgment which can come between the conscience and God's final judgment. It remains, in spite of men, in all its force and authority, and a man must answer to it, and no other authority can come in between, so as to relieve him from obedience to that judgment. So that in the proper sense of judge I admit no judge but God, who executes it in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Judgment applies to the final state of souls, and not to causes between man and man, or offenses against the State. Offenses against the State, the State judges. Our offenses are against God, and God judges..
M. Yes; but the State appoints judges, and God has appointed the Church.
N*. Hence the Queen cannot judge at all; she may show mercy, but that is not the question now. But she is not allowed to judge at all. Is that true as regards God:
M. Of course not.
N*. He judges, then, Himself, and He only; save, as we know, He exercises this judgment by Christ, doe he not?
M. Of course, every one owns that.
N*. The whole- case, then, has to be settled by Him who knows it all, He being the judge, and having the whole cause originally and finally before Him?
N. It has.
N*. Priests and Pope and-all.
Yes, priests and Pope and all.
N*. Then all your comparison about a judge is simply all false. God Himself judges, and that is the only true judgment, and I am bound to look to that, and not to allow any other to come between me and my conscience. For God judges according to a permanent, abiding, direct authority He has over me every moment, so that I dare not look away from Him. If I do I am sinning. For note that, James, it is not only particular cases to be settled, about which God judges, but every instant of our lives, so that we cannot look at anything but Him without neglecting Him and His claims.
James. I see it plain enough; I feel it, too. I know I may fail, and shall, save as kept by His grace, but I know I am bound to take His will every moment. It ought to be my joy to obey Him. It was the blessed Savior's own joy; but at any rate I am bound to do it, and must give, and ought to give, an account of myself to God. And tell me, M., can the priest, or the Pope, if you please, answer for me in that day?
M. No, of course they cannot.
N*. Then I would not give much for their answering for me now.
M. But is it not said, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And, "Do you not judge them that are within?" and " to whomsoever you forgive anything I forgive it."
N*. It is.
M. Then there must be a judge.
N*. But unless you speak of what the Apostle's authority established as binding, which no Christian denies, you are now speaking of discipline, not of a rule of flip. Now, I own fully Scripture speaks of discipline (1 Cor. 5:13, 2 Cor. 2:1010To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (2 Corinthians 2:10)). When a person was put out his sins were bound upon him, and when he was forgiven and readmitted his sins were loosed. And this is the distinct, unequivocal force of a passage you are fond of quoting. "If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." The subject is a wrong done to a person; he remonstrates; if he recovers his brother, well; if not he takes two or three more, so that if the person remains obdurate these are witnesses of all; and then he tells the whole assembly, and if the wrong-doer will not hear the assembly the injured person may hold him as a person having no claim to be owned as belonging to it; but what has this to do with a rule of faith.? And note, just as it was in the Corinthians, the whole assembly was to be listened to, and that to cleanse themselves (1 Cor. 5)
James. Well, M., you used to quote this passage as if it was a direction for everybody to listen to the Church's teaching, and it has nothing whatever to say to it. It is when some matter of wrong is told to the assembly as the last means of winning a person back from wronging his neighbor, and he won't hearken to the whole assembly, he may then be treated as a heathen that does not belong to it. And I see it is said that wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, He is in the midst of them, so that it applies to Christians assembled together.
M. But is it not said, " Go and teach all nations, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world "?
N*. Let me remark to you that you are quoting Scripture, and you tell me I cannot receive it without the Church, nor understand it either.
M. Yes; but the Church has sanctioned it.
N*. What Church?
M. Why the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
N*. But I do not own it to be the Church, nor do I admit that the Church can sanction God's word; it savors to me of blasphemy. You tell me I must have the Church first, and we have not got that yet, and therefore you cannot quote it to me. You tell me I must leave it to the Church to give authority to the Scripture. And now you are quoting Scripture to prove the Church. That will not do.
James. No, surely, M.; you cannot bring it to prove the Church till you have the Church to prove it, according to your system; so you ought to prove the Church some other way, for according to you the Scripture cannot have authority till you have it from the Church, and we have not got the Church yet, for your faith. Though I do not contest the Bible.
N*. Quite right, James. You have got no ground yet, and we will therefore surely answer as to it seriously. But when we are inquiring into the rule of faith this is important, because the Roman Catholic has no real ground for his faith. If the Scripture is to prove the authority of the Church, the Church cannot prove the authority of Scripture. If the Church is to prove the authority of Scripture, we cannot use Scripture till we have the Church first, as the Scripture has none without it.
James. That is clear, M.. How does your Dr. Milner get out of that?
M. Why, he says he believes the Catholic Church, and everything that she teaches, upon the motives of credibility (namely, her unity, sanctity, etc.), which accompany her. And she brings me the book and tells me it is inspired.
N*. On whose judgment then have you believed the Church?-who has judged of these motives of credibility?
M. Well, on my own, of course. I must judge if it is the Church.
N*. Clearly, but then you avow that your whole faith depends on private judgment, and not on a divine foundation at all. And, remark, Dr. Milner felt the force of this, and refers to the objection made to him, and seeks to clear it up. Now, in doing this, he is forced to rest the Church's authority on motives of credibility-motives for whom? Man. That is, it is mere human probability. The house cannot be stronger than its foundation. If I have only probability for the Church, what the Church teaches can only probably have authority. That is, it is no divine authority or divine faith at all. It would be a blasphemy to say, " Probably God says the truth." The Protestant's faith is founded on God's word as such, and motives of credibility can go no further than private judgment, nay, may vary with each individual in their force. Thus sanctity is alleged to be a proof of the true Church. I read history, and I find that what a Romanist calls the Church and infallible is stamped throughout, after history as contrasted with Scripture begins, with the most horrible depravity and un-holiness of anything on record. Where is the motive of credibility for me? When it rests on motives of credibility, it must rest on private judgment. There is no divine faith at all. Mr. John H. Newman admits there is only a degree of probability, though an immensely strong one. But that is not divine faith. The Romanist has confessedly none. Dr. Milner says, you receive as a king's messenger one clothed like one, and you assure yourself he is one, and then accept the letter from the king which he brings, which tells you to mind all he (the messenger) says. But if he was a clever rogue, he might deceive _ you, and then use the letter to prove you ought to mind him, and get authority over you in everything, and you have only your own judgment to trust to in receiving him. Thus you have nothing but your own judgment to trust to, upon your own showing, for what you believe. But let us see a little further what Dr. Milner's argument is worth. He believes the Church and all that she teaches because of unity, sanctity, etc. Why all that she teaches? There may be unity and sanctity; and yet not present infallibility. This argument will not hold water. Dr. Milner jumps into infallibility before he has even got the Scriptures to tell him the Church is infallible, a point we will speak of. Then, suppose I deny the unity (and, remember, all the oldest Churches reject the Roman Catholic Church as erroneous, and the Pope's authority, and of course do not admit their infallibility, and so, we have seen, do the majority rather of Christians), and the sanctity-both of which, in fact, I do entirely deny-all your supposition falls to the ground. If you have: to prove them, in the -end divine authority rests upon the judgment I form of unity and sanctity, before I have got any revelation at all. How do I know there ought to be but one Church? And as there are many, how am I to know which is the right one?-and must I know all history in order to say which has been holy, or which has the right succession, if any, before I can have any right faith? You have no divine foundation for your faith at all, nor the Church to give it me. And, supposing I am asked to receive all the Church teaches now, why may not I judge of the sanctity and unity at the beginning of her history and believe her to be infallible then, and hear what she says? Ah, you tell me I must not judge by that, but only by what is now. Now, this looks suspicious. Why may not I see what the Apostles and inspired men taught-what the Church, if you please, taught then? Was it not one and holy then?
M. Of course it was.
N*. Was it not more united and holy than now?
M. Well, I suppose it was, for here, at least there is not much to boast in that way.
N*. Why may I not then hear it at that time? Then I should listen to Paul, and John, and Peter, and the rest. But you do not seem to like that, you will only allow me to hear people who are not inspired. And where am I to find any inspired teaching, or even the Church's teaching now?
M. You must listen to her pastors.
N*. Are they inspired?
M. No.
N*. Then I can have no divine faith in what they say.
M. But they will not mislead you, the priest is seen after by the bishop, and he by them above him.
N*. How can I tell? Is that divine faith? At any rate, I do not hear the Church, for aught I can tell, in hearing him. We will return to this, for it is a large subject. But on our main point at present. Dr. Milner on his own showing, though he has been very astute, has no ground to stand upon. And after all I am to listen to this Church now in those who confessedly are not inspired, and am not allowed to listen to it when
Apostles and others were inspired. And what does Dr. Milner therefore do? He puts the Word of God first, unwritten as well as written, as the rule; and the Church as the judge., When pressed, for it is only in a note, he says the Church must come first, and be proved by its unity, sanctity, etc., etc., and then come to the Word, but this, in fact, he did not dare to do.. He had not the unity. He had not the sanctity. He tries to confirm the Church's authority by these marks when he has got the true rule as he says, but according to his own showing he could not get it till he had got the Church. But he could not put the Church forward first because he has to prove it had such authority, which could not be proved at all; and next, that the Roman system was that Church. It could not be proved that the Church had the authority, because, if the Church has to be proved first, how am I to know she is infallible?-how can I tell what marks she is to be known by? She cannot adduce Scripture to prove it in any way, for what propounds and explains it-that is, the Church-we have not got yet. And supposing, I admit the Church to exist, as I do, for there it is before my eyes; why is it infallible? It tells me so; but is it right in telling me so? I see worldliness, ambition, horrible corruption, disputes, difference of doctrine. Take for instance the Dominicans and Franciscans on the Immaculate Conception. The former, the greatest and most important body for many centuries in their Church (and which managed the Inquisition), denied what is now held necessary to be believed as of the faith itself.*
M. But then the Pope and the Bishops have decided now, and they had not then.
4*. But how do I know the Pope and the Bishops have the right to decide? Who has made them infallible? I know some pretend the Pope is so, and some pretend a general council is, and some say there must be both. But this is a new infallible body. And is it not a strange thing that the Church, which you say was to keep people safe in the truth, should have left a vast body, and the most famous doctors, and those who were to decide upon heresy, in error for centuries, and only then settle the truth. How am I to receive all it teaches, or anything with a divine faith? Hence, in fact, Dr. Milner puts the Word of God first to prove the Church before he has proved it to be the Word of God, and declaring we cannot tell whether it is. This rule even then rests on no divine faith in his system, because, according to that, I get to the Church and cannot tell if the Scriptures, by which its authority is alleged to be taught, are divine. He is cleverly resting on my protestant good faith to hide the weakness of his own cause. Mark another thing, he puts the proof of the credibility, of Christianity in a -protestant mouth-in Dr. Carey's. How comes that?. He makes him quote the Scriptures as a warrant for the doctrines and miracles of the Lord Jesus.. Now, he is quite right in doing that, because faith in Christianity cannot be founded on the Church, because he who has to learn to believe in Christianity of course does not yet own the Church. But here, however cunning, he has given all his position up. I can believe without the Church. I have discovered the true religion. And if I have believed in Christianity and the word, I have what I want substantially, and above all recognize the divine authority of the Scriptures. You plead, or make the Protestant plead-for as a Roman Catholic you can have no such faith-the words and works of the blessed Jesus. You do well, but where did you get them in order to prove what Christianity is? Have you any account but the Scriptures of the words and works of Jesus? Not the smallest iota. Anything that ever pretended to be so is too bad for anyone to allege it as of any authority. You must come to the Scriptures to know what Christ said or did. A priest may repeat it from them, or I may, but nothing (with all the boastings of the clergy) has the smallest authority but what is found there. But then the word has divine authority over my soul; the moment I have Jesus' words, and the Apostles' words, I have the certainty of divine truth. You have nothing at all but this to prove what Christianity is, and its credibility; and if I take this and so believe in Christianity, I have already the words of Christ and His Apostles, and neither would nor dare but hear them. Do not tell me I cannot understand or believe them. That is the Christianity I have to understand and believe. Now, I do not wish to offend you, M., God forbid, but if I were to take what you call the Catholic Church, as it is or as it was at the time the Reformation took place or long before, I see, without at all pretending that Protestants are what they ought to be, the greatest scene of wickedness that ever was known on the face of God's earth. And I should say, If that is what I am to believe as Christianity, God keep me from it. It is a wickedness that revolts an honest moral man, and that in priests, Bishops, and Popes more than in others.
That there is no disputing about before the Reformation.
M. Well, all admit there have been wicked popes and clergy, but that is not the Church.
N*. But is it not what you want me to hear? Are they not the people who you say are to secure my having the truth; and as you plead sanctity as a proof of infallible authority, I must at once say, Well, it is certainly not to be had here.
M. Well, but that does not change the faith of the Church.
N*. Aye, but we are talking about the infallibility of the Church, on which my faith is to be divinely founded.
And if sanctity or even unity is to be a proof of it, it was lost altogether, for the Popes were the wickedest of men, and there were two and even three at a time denouncing one another as the falsest and wickedest of men, and at last it was so scandalous that the three who then pretended to be Pope were all deposed. Where was sanctity; and unity then? Where infallibility? And note, to have it, it must never cease.
M. Well, but it was in the known doctrines of the Church.
R. But I thought we must have a speaking tribunal. And if you found yourself on documents, where are they?
M. Well, there is the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Pope Pius IV.
N*. That was a century later, and if I go to these documents, why may not I go to what Paul and Peter
and John wrote? I get it first hand, and I suppose the Apostles were as sure as the Council of Trent.
M. Yes of course; but you may interpret them wrong; and then if you go to that, they are in Greek; you must come to the pastors of the Church.
N*. Well, but I may interpret the decrees of Trent and the Catechism wrong. They are much more obscure than the most of the New Testament. And as to this being in Greek, the decrees and the Catechism are in Latin, and you are not going to tell me that the poor Romanists read them to know their faith; and if I go to the pastor I am with a fallible man, and can have no divine faith. No, with the Word of God I have a divine foundation for my faith, whereas you have none at all.
Hence, M., though you have no right to quote the Scriptures to me, because you say we cannot tell they are the Word of God, and you have not yet proved what and where the true Church is; yet, as I do believe they are the Word of God, I shall make no objection to your quoting them, so that we will return to the point we left, only it was very important to show that you Romanists have no divine ground for your faith at all.
Your principle is that we cannot tell if the Scriptures be the Word of God. Hence, I cannot have a divine faith in the revelation given. I cannot tell if it is a revelation. If it is it has divine authority, and I must listen to it. As to the Church, you have not proved anything about it yet. But I shall listen to all you say from the
Word, because, though you have no right to use it, I do not want to cavil, and I own it to be God's Word. We
were speaking of " Go and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of the world."
M. Well, is not that a plain proof that the Church is secure from error, and that as the Apostles could not live forever we must obey their successors?
N*. Who are their successors?
M. Why, all the bishops, and especially the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.
Y. I see nothing about successors. But must I know the succession of bishops of a see before I know what saves my soul? This is a serious question, because there have been three Popes at a time. But let us see now if you think God was always with them. For instance, when Pope Julius was the most ardent warrior of his day, or when his predecessor, Pope Alexander VI., carried on a life of dissoluteness without example, seeking to establish his illegitimate children in dukedoms and principalities, to say nothing worse of him (for worse is said and counted true), and at last was poisoned by what he had prepared to poison a rich cardinal to get his money-was the Lord (may he forgive one for naming such a thing) with these as with the Apostles?
M. Yes, but there are wicked men everywhere.
N*. No doubt. That is not our question; but is the Lord with them as He was with the Apostles? That is the question.
James. Why, M., you cannot say that. It would be awful.
N*. Well, when there were two Popes for thirty years, and then three for some years more, the two holding their ground against the third, named to put them down, and then this third, probably poisoned by the person who was his successor, and after various fighting in open war, the Emperor succeeding in having a general council, and putting down all three (the last as too infamous to be tolerated), was the Lord with all these, or with which of them?
M. No, of course not; but He was with the Church.
N*. That I believe. But then, in that case these were not the Church. And remember, your doctrine is that the promise to the Apostles was with their successors. And this schism is of the more importance because it is alleged, that the Lord may be with an office when not with the person. But here there were two successors condemning each other, and half Europe siding with one and half with the other, and a third condemning both, so that the Lord could not be with them, and neither could secure the truth for us. The truth is, the papacy and all connected with it was such a horrible scene of wickedness that men got tired of it, and put down these Popes-and we may well say God in His mercy, too-and brought about the Reformation. For the Reformation long cried for by all Christendom took place about a century after this in another way than was expected. The Popes, to whom Reformation was left by the Council, taking good care not to reform themselves, though not so scandalous as those I have referred to.
M. Well, but there were good Popes, too.
N*. In the beginning of the history of Christianity there were blessed men in the see of Rome, martyrs among them, only they were not Popes of Christendom. Far from it. Yet, already in the fifth century the city of Rome was filled with blood and massacres through the conflicts between two contending Popes, Symmachus and Laurentius, and at last they had to go to an heretical Arian king to decide the matter. This is the. Roman Catholic account (Baronius, vol. viii., 619). The dispute, too, lasted a long time. But, further, when the so-called bishops went to war, as princes at the head of their troops, as happened constantly in the middle ages, particularly in Germany, was the Lord with them as the successors of the Apostles? And when they allowed sin for ten florins, as we have seen, was the Lord with them?
James. Well, M., what can you say to this? But is this all certain, Sir?
N*. I have stated nothing but what is matter of well known and authentic history, for which authentic proofs remain, and mainly in councils of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor, indeed, is it possible to go into all the wickedness and horrors that went on.
H. Well, I suppose it cannot be denied that they were dark and evil times; even Catholics admit that. But they were the habits of the age, and the clergy were not wholly exempt.
N*. They do admit it. St. Bernard, as you call him, said anti-Christ was at Rome in the eleventh century.
But were the successors of the Apostles with whom you allege the Lord was, to follow the habits of the age. Besides, forbidding to marry and then living in sin was the case of the clergy only, and not otherwise the habits of the age, save as the corruption of the clergy corrupted everything around them.
James. But I thought, M., you called the Church holy, and what is all this? It is dreadful; how could you think I could take such persons for successors of the Apostles?
N*. But again, are all the Greek patriarchs, prelates and clergy who reject the authority of the Pope-are they successors of the Apostles too?
M. But they are in schism.
N*. Well, but then successors of the Apostles are in schism. Is not that a queer thing, and how is the Lord with them so that they can secure my faith? And then there are some sixty millions of professing Christians
in schism with them,_ well nigh half the number of those subject to the Pope. And then, note, they are the successors of the Apostles, most of them in older Churches than that of Rome. How can I be secure in thinking they can guide me according to the promise we are speaking of, " Lo, I am with you always," when they condemn utterly the pretensions of the one you think, I suppose, infallible?
M. But they hold the same doctrines.
N*. So your Dr. Milner states, but it is not true, and begging his pardon, he must have known it was not true. They do not hold the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, nor purgatory-the last exercising more influence in the Papal body than any other doctrine. I might add the priests marry, only that is practice, not doctrine. Again, when Pope Liberius turned Arian to please the Emperor Constantius, and denied the divinity of the Lord Jesus, was the Lord with him as a successor of the Apostles? Athanasius, who stood up for the truth of the blessed Lord's divinity was banished, and died in banishment excommunicated. And even before, in Constantine's time, when all the prelates, fathers, as they are called, of the Council of Tire joined in accepting this denial of the truth, and the Arians were recalled, could they pretend the Lord was with them?-or the 800 bishops who at Ariminium denied the divinity of the Lord? There were but 318 in the Council of Nice, which affirmed it, only the Emperor's authority maintained it. Had I trusted the clergy for the truth in Constantius's days I must have turned Arian. If I lived in Russia or Turkey now I must, if I listen to the clergy, hold the pretensions of Rome to be all wrong. If I live at Rome I must hold the successors of the Apostles in the East to be all wrong. Is that all the security you can give me? When I take the Scriptures I have the certainty of having the truth, because I get what you own to be the Apostles' own teaching. But to our point. Is God with all those of whom we have been speaking in their errors, when the Pope, for example, was an Arian, or when there were two?
M. No, of course He was not with them in that. But you see God has preserved the Church through it all in spite of all this, and you must hear the Church.
N*. We have not got the true Church yet. However, you hold, then, that God has preserved the true Church not by, but in spite of, these successors of the Apostles. That I fully believe, and bless His abundant grace for He has not permitted the gates of hell to prevail against it. But if anything could have frustrated God's promise and have destroyed the Church, the conduct of the hierarchy would have done so.
M. But He was very often with them, too. There were holy, godly men, who sacrificed their lives for the truth.
N*. Undoubtedly there were, at any rate in the earlier part of the history, though we might not always agree in judging of the particular cases. But there were some more enlightened, others less. And I am well assured that God was with them in the measure in which they followed the Apostles and their doctrine, and so he will now with those who do, and that to the end of the age. He was fully with the Apostles, and will be with all those who serve Him like them according to the measure given unto them. But that does not make the Popes and prelates who are not at all like them any security for the truth. I believe, then, fully in the promise given, and that the Lord was with the Apostles and will be with all those who so serve Him. And you are forced to admit that with the mass of your successors of the Apostles the Lord is not. And your Dr. Milner looks at it, when it suits him, in the same way, for he couples with the passage we are speaking of, another from St. Mark, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." I add, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Now, in this work I do not doubt that the Lord is with those who serve Him; but then your successors of the Apostles are not that in their office. They rule over the flock where people are all professing Christians. Christ is speaking in Matthew of making disciples of the heathen. In Mark, too, he is speaking of the conversion to Christianity of those who were strangers to it. He is not speaking of the care of the Church, nor of successors in that at all. And mark here the importance of a distinction I was making with James before you came. Dr. Milner says the unwritten word was the means of propagating the doctrines. Now I admit that fully, and it may be, and is still; but that does not make the preacher a rule of faith. A means of propagating is not a rule of faith. This fallacy runs all through the book.
M. But Christ promised the Comforter should abide forever, and that he would teach the Apostles all things, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever He had said to them.
N*. Both these statements I believe with all my heart, as Christ's own words, but allow me to say-If He taught the Apostles all things and brought all things to their remembrance', two things are clear:-First, that all was taught them then, and all brought to remembrance then, and that of Christ's teaching nothing more is to be learned than what they thus received. On this point, Tertullian largely insists. And better still, the Apostle John. He tells us that if we abide in what was from the beginning we shall abide in the Father and in the Son. Next, that it was to them only He then spoke, for He says "to bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you." This can apply only to the Apostles, and we have to inquire, How do we get what was thus taught them, whether directly by the Holy Ghost or by His bringing to remembrance Christ's words?
M. That is true; but the Comforter was to abide forever.
N*. So I am fully persuaded He does, but not to teach new truths, for all were taught to the Apostles. He may, morally speaking, lead us to think of what Christ says, but cannot properly do what he did to the Apostles. And the passage is an unfortunate one, for Judas (not Iscariot) asks the Lord how He would manifest Himself to them and not to the world, and the Lord tells him, "If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will make our abode with him." So that the way the Comforter abides with the Apostles and their successors, if you please, is with those who love Him and keep His word. Thus it is the Lord Himself carries on the succession, not by offices. Now, I admit, in the fullest way, that there are gifts, " pastors and teachers," by which the Lord edifies His people individually and collectively. But these, all admit, are not rules of faith. They are a means of blessing, not a rule of faith. So that if we examine the passage we find that all was taught to the Apostles, and that the true presence of the Spirit is with those who love Christ and keep His word. There is no promise, whatever to official successors. There is one to the Apostles, the end of the age being unrevealed; but there is not one word of official successors as objects of the promise. To allege it is only a supposition that it must be; a pretension often loudest in the wickedest now, to be the successors of the Apostles. And when Judas asks how the Lord could be present, it is explained in another way by the Lord. Christ, who had been their Comforter or Paraclete, was going away from the disciples. This was a deep sorrow, an affecting loss. He promises another, who should not thus leave them, but ever abide with them. And surely as long as the Church remains the Holy Ghost will remain. Who has Him dwelling in him is another question. The Lord says He is with those who love Him and keep His word. Now, as all truth was taught to the Apostles, one question is, How can we have this securely and surely as they had it? But that there were any successors to the Apostles in the true sense of the word I entirely deny. First, in a mass of places, Churches were founded in which they never were, so that there was no proper successor to an Apostle for there was no Apostle to succeed to. There may have been godly administrative care and teaching by those called and sent of God, and a great blessing too, but no proper successors of the Apostles where there were no Apostles to succeed. But I go farther into the root and heart of the thing than this. There was no successor to an Apostle at all as to what he was as an Apostle. No one was chosen, sent directly by the Lord Himself, and that is what an Apostle means. It is a name given by Christ. No pretended successor could say as Paul (and the rest too) "not of man, nor by man." The pretension to be a successor denies the person being in an Apostle's place; for it denies that immediate relationship to Christ, which alone constitutes apostleship. The Timothy's and Silvanuses and the rest, precious as they were to the Church, were by man, or simply gifts without any local office, as the prophets. An Apostle, in the nature of things, cannot have a successor in any official place in the Church. For such successor is as such not the founder of the Church as an eye-witness, and sent directly by Christ as such. Nobody pretends that those called successors of the Apostles are inspired to make revelations. Individually they have no pretension to be considered in any respect as successor of an Apostle. Nor was it (unless, possibly, at Jerusalem, and that is quite uncertain) the office of an apostle to govern any particular see, nor did any, unless the case I have just alluded to, and then that was not the apostolic office. But I go further. There is distinct proof that the Apostles themselves recognized no successors. Paul insists on the diligent care of the elders, because he had no successor. This is very distinct. He knew (Acts 20) that after his decease grievous wolves would enter in, and perverse men would arise. Why, after his decease, if he was to have a successor? Evil would spring up because there was not an Apostle to check or control it by his spiritual energy and consequent authority. He urges the elders, those whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers, to watch-a thing wholly out of place if another was to succeed him and take his place. Some say Timothy was afterward Bishop of Ephesus. There is no evidence of it, but the contrary; but if he were it upsets the theory altogether, for the same authorities tell us John was at Ephesus, so that we have an Apostle there governing and guiding- and yet a successor at the same time to do it as if the Apostle were gone. So Peter says, seeing his departure was near, that he would take care they should have these things always in remembrance, and writes his epistle; but if he had a successor who was to secure the truth, and it be not the, Scriptures which are to do it through grace, he made a great mistake in the whole matter. Paul therefore, and Peter and John practically, too, all deny entirely the whole theory on which the Romish system is founded. They know no successor, deny by their words that there will be such, and give other means of security as regards the truth; for Paul is still clearer than Peter as to the Scriptures. Not only does he commend the elders of Ephesus to God and the word of His grace, but he tells us positively that in the last days
I perilous times should come. That the professing Church would be in a horrible state, having a form of godliness but denying the power of it; and that we should turn away from such, and that the security of the faithful Christian would be the Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation. Not a word of tradition, but the contrary; for Timothy is made to rely on knowing of whom he had learned the things he knew. That was Paul himself.
James. Where is that, Sir?
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.