Page images
PDF
EPUB

whom the debt is due ought to have a voice in the matter of remitting it. If I had disposed of a debt in that manner, I should always be afraid that it would some day or other be exacted—that the real creditor would appear and make his demand. Then it would be a poor excuse for me to say, that my fellow-debtor forgave me the debt. I will tell you what I expect. I expect that a great deal which the priests forgive will be exacted notwithstanding. Romanists talk of going to the priest, and getting their old scores wiped off; just as if it were but a slate and pencil memorandum, which any one can rub out. The sin of man is not thus recorded. It is "written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond." Jer. xvii. 1. It is not so easily obliterated.

But is there not Scripture in support of the priest's claim? See John xx. 23. Does not Christ say to his disciples. "Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained?" Yes, he says that to his Disciples-the Apostles. But pray what right have the priests to found a claim of theirs on a grant made to the Apostles? They do indeed come after the Apostles, but they are their successors in no other sense. I should like to know how the priests prove that they, inherit the apostolical power of remitting sins. But I forget; they scorn a resort to proof.

The power communicated in that grant to the Apos tles was merely ministerial and declarative. It was no less true after than before that grant was made, that none can forgive sins but God only. That the power was declarative merely-that is, that the Apostles were empowered to remit and retain sins, only as they were authorized and enabled to make a correct statement to mankind of the way and means of salvation, to express the conditions of pardon and condemnation, and to propose the terms of life and death-is clear to me from the fact, that the conferring of it was immediately preceded by the Saviour's breathing on them, and saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' Now this communication of the Spirit qualified them for the declarative remission and retention of sins. They were thereby

[ocr errors]

inspired to pronounce, on what grounds sins are remitted and retained by God. *

This was the power over sins granted to the Apostles; and I shall show presently, that this declarative power is all they pretend ever to have exercised. Now, the priests have no right to claim even this power, except in that subordinate sense in which it is possessed by all who are authorized to preach the Gospel. Did Christ ever

*Can the Romanists produce a single instance from any part of the New Testament, in which there is any appearance even of an Apostle (or any one else) requiring or receiving Confession, and pronouncing or giving Forgiveness of Sins, in the Romish sense? The Apostles preached the Gospel: they pointed out the only way of Salvation: they testified, according to Mark xvi. 15, 16, that he who believed and was baptized would be saved, but that he who believed not would be damned: they declared what were the works of the flesh and what were the fruits of the Spirit, (Gal. v. 16-25): they warned men to examine themselves, whether they be in the faith, (2 Cor. xiii. 5): and they have given us abundance of rules and tests, by the faithful application of which we may discern between the children of God and the children of the devil, (1 John iii. 8--10.) The whole of that first Epistle of John is little else than a series and collection of such tests. All this the Apostles did; and they are their true successors who herein follow their example. The Apostles never offered to remit or retain sins in any other way. When Protestants

*

maintain that " Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ * hath given power and commandment to his Ministers to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins," and thereupon do testify, that "HE pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His holy Gospel," then they faithfully follow the example of the Apostles; they remit the sins of all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe the holy Gospel, and they retain the sins of all who refuse to repent and believe. It remains for every one who hears their faithful declarations of Divine truth, to ascertain by Scriptural self-examination, whether he does or does not truly repent and believe. He who, instead of pursuing this Scriptural course, and obeying the Divine command, (2 Cor. xiii. 5.) relies on the Absolution pronounced by a sinful man presumptuously assuming to himself the prerogative of Christ, (Acts v. 31.) may fitly be called upon to show, wherein he is better than a madman on the one hand, and a rebel against God's commandment on the other.-A. S. T.

66

breathe on them, and say to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost," that they should claim equality with the Apostles? The effect of the inspiration is not so manifest in the case of the priests as it was in the case of the Apostles, if I may be permitted to express an opinion.

But the priests claim far more than ever entered the thoughts of the Apostles. They are not satisfied with the ministerial and declarative power over sins. They claim a magisterial and authoritative power to remit or retain them. Consequently they call sinners to come and confess their sins to them. Did Peter and the other Apostles, the very men to whom Christ said, "whosesoever sins ye remit, &c." ever do such a thing? You read in the Acts of the Apostles of synagogues and proseuches, or places of prayer; but do you find anything about confession-boxes there? Does there seem to have been anything auricular in the transactions of the day of Pentecost?

There is the case of Simon Magus that strikes me as in point. If Peter and John had had the power of forgiving sin, could they not have exercised it in favour of Simon? But we find Peter addressing him just as any Protestant Minister would have done: " Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." How differently the Roman priest would have acted! He would have said, "Well, Simon, and what have you to say for yourself? Ah, that is very bad, very bad. But if you are sorry, Simon, I forgive you. Only I cannot let you off without doing some penance. You must say so many paternosters, and you must not eat meat for so many days." This is the way in which the boasted successors of Peter manage these matters. But they will say, Simon was not penitent, otherwise perhaps Peter would have pardoned him. But I wonder if pardon would have waited for Peter's action in the matter.

I suspect not. I suspect the gracious Lord, when he sees contrition in any soul, does not withhold pardon till a priest, or even an Apostle, shall intervene and act in the matter. And, when the good angels have ascer

tained that a sinner has repented, I rather suppose, that they do not suspend their rejoicing until he has gone to confession, and has got absolution from the priest.

What a glorious book the Bible is! I wish the authorities of the Roman Catholic church would condescend to strike it off the list of prohibited books, and allow the Lord to speak to his creatures. I wish they would let their people, the many thousands that on the Sabbath crowd their chapels and cathedrals, read, or hear, what Jehovah says to " every one" in that wonderful chapter, the 55th of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful chapter. But the Roman Catholics don't know any thing about it. No; and they have never heard of that precious and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter of Isaiah, in which the Lord saith to the sinner, “Come now, and let us" (you and I sinner!) "reason together." And then follows the reasoning; "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Ask the awakened sinner, or the recently pardoned, what he would take for that passage. He esteems it above all price; and to the Christian it becomes every day more and more a theme of wonder and delight. But the Roman Catholics don't know that the Lord has ever made any such kind and condescending proposal to his creatures. They never hear of the call of God, to come and reason with Him. The only "come" they hear is the priest's call. I pity them.

But it is no wonder that the priests treat the people as they do; for if they allowed them to know what the Lord says to them, they would be very apt to go directly to God in Christ, and leave the priest out of the question. And then, Where would be the importance of the priest? and his emolument, where?

16. A Roman Catholic Book Reviewed.

I happened to lay my hand the other day on a little book entitled, "The Christian's Guide to Heaven, a Manual for Catholics," to which were appended some

hymns. The book was published in Baltimore by a respectable Roman Catholic bookseller, and under the sanction of the Archbishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good authority. I will look into this book. I know what Protestants say of Roman Catholics. I will see now what Roman Catholics say of themselves. Men cannot complain when we take their own account of themselves; and I like the way of judging people out of their own mouths, because it shuts their mouths so far as reply is concerned. I resolved that I would compare the statements and doctrines of this book, professing to be a guide to heaven, with the statements and doctrines of that bigger book which is the Protestant's guide to heaven. You will know that I mean the Bible. That is our manual,—the guide which we consult and follow. However, if a book agrees with the Bible, that

is enough.

So I began to read; and one of the first things that I came to was, "Conditions of plenary indulgences." Indulgences! thought I. What does a Christian want with indulgences? He is apt enough to indulge himself. And how are indulgences to help him to heaven? I should rather pronounce self-denial the road. Indulgences, not partial but plenary! I should think plenary indulgence, on any condition, was enough to ruin one. If by indulgence the Roman Catholics mean pardon, they have chosen an unfortunate way to express it. Why not say full pardon, instead of plenary indulgence? But I suppose pardon expresses what God exercises, and indulgence what the church grants. I should like to know, however, what right the church has to grant any thing of the kind.

Well, the conditions enumerated were four. I took note only of the first, which was in these words: "To confess their sins with a sincere repentance to a priest approved by the bishop." This begins very well, and goes on well for a time. Confession of sin, with sincere repentance, is truly the way to pardon. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” But what a pity the condition did not stop there; or if

« PreviousContinue »