Page images
PDF
EPUB

man knows what). There are some who say, " Dogs and mice may truly and really eat the body of Christ;" but then there are others who stoutly deny this. There are some who say the accidents of the bread and wine can nourish, and others say the substance returns again. But why should I add any more? it is a long and troublesome business to count up all their divisions: the whole form of their religion and doctrine is to this day controverted and uncertain, among those who first gave being and entertainment to it: for they scarcely ever agree, except it be as the pharisees and sadducees, or as Herod and Pilate did of old, against Christ.'1

6

Unity, then, in the church of Rome, exists in only one shape;-that of 'absolute, unconditional submission to the teaching of the church.'' Multitudes, doubtless, there are, who say with Dr. Milner, I believe whatever the Holy Catholic church believes and teaches.' But this is not unity of doctrine; it is merely uniformity of mental slavery! The man who adopts this system does, in effect, say to his priest, I put myself into your hands; do you believe for me whatever you think best, and I will subscribe it, profess it, swear to it, or anything else you please.'

An unity of this kind does indeed exist among the adherents of the Romish priesthood; but it is neither more respectable or more safe than the same kind of mental slavery as it exists in Ceylon, in Hindostan, or in Madagascar. It is merely the old device of Satan, by which men's consciences may be quieted, on the one hand, and religion turned into a gainful trade, on the other: the multitude giving their souls

1 Apologia, cap. v. sec. 1.

2 Wiseman, lect. 1. p. 17.

blindfold into the hands of the priests of Buddhu, of Brahma, or of Antichrist; and receiving back, from the sellers of pardons, sundry soul-deceiving delusions. Such an unity exists in the Romish church; but it is not an unity of doctrine, in any correct sense of the word.

For doctrine' is that which addresses itself to the understanding and to the heart, and to be really embraced, it must first be understood. And we have already shewn that it is impossible for Rome to offer to her adherents anything resembling unity of doctrine, in this sense; simply because she does not herself possess it.

There is, there can be, only one source of unity in doctrine; simply because there is but one source of truth. In the divine word that source is opened to us. In it there is no discrepancy, no inconsistency, no need of disunion. The nearer, therefore, men

keep to it, just so much the nearer will they draw to each other. It is a common centre, where all who will may unite, and it is the only centre where such a genuine and real union can take place.

But as truth is one, and the only source of real union, so error is multifarious, and in itself essentially destructive of unity. Just in proportion as men ́recede from the only centre of union, do they also recede from each other, but in an endless variety of directions.

Rome refuses, without hesitation and without reserve, to abide by this centre of unity. It is a principle of action with her, to fly from the unerring word of God, to the erring and jarring decisions, interpretations, and opinions of men. And thus it is that by an inevitable consequence she banishes unity

of doctrine from her pale. Her fundamental principle actually renders it impossible. It never has existed, and it never can exist, within her communion. Her internal history consists of little else than a series of controversies and dissentions; and it is only externally that she can offer a shew of unity; which, however, is nothing more than the necessary credulity of blindness, and the mute acquiescence of mental thraldom.

V.

THE CHURCH.

THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.

FROM the first mark of the true church, as stated by Dr. Milner, UNITY, we proceed to the second-SANCTITY. On this head, Dr. Milner remarks, that 'Reason itself tells us, that the God of purity and sanctity could not institute a religion destitute of this character, and the inspired apostle assures us that, Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water, by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle. Ephes. v. 25, 27. The comparison which I am going to institute between the Catholic church and the leading Protestant societies on the article of Sanctity or Holiness, will be made on these four heads; 1st. The Doctrine of Holiness; 2dly. The Means of Holiness; 3rdly. The Fruits of Holiness; and lastly, The Divine Testimony of Holiness.'1 He then proceeds to establish his first point, thus:

1 End of Controversy, p. 205, 206.

-To consider, first, the doctrine of the chief Protestant communions: this is well known to have been originally grounded in the pernicious and impious. principles, that God is the author and necessitating cause, as well as the avenging punisher of sin; that man has no free will to avoid it; and that justification and salvation are the effects of an enthusiastic persuasion, under the name of faith, that a person is actually justified and saved, independently of any real belief in the revealed truths, independently of hope, charity, repentance for sin, benevolence to our fellowcreatures, loyalty to our king and country; or any other virtue; all which were censured by the first reformers as they are by the strict Methodists still, under the name of works, and by many of them declared to be even hurtful to salvation. It is asserted in the Harmony of Confessions, a celebrated work, published in the early times of the reformation, that 'all the confessions of the Protestant churches teach this primary article (of justification) with a holy consent; which seems to imply, says Archdeacon Blackburn, 'that this was the single article in which they all did agree.''1

,

Now one would naturally have expected, that after thus broadly stating those frightful charges against 'the chief Protestant communions,' and having alluded to ، the confessors of the Protestant churches' as teaching the errors he lays to their charge, one would naturally have expected, we repeat, that so grave an accusation would have been immediately sustained by a reference to these same documents. In any such reasonable expectation,

1 End of Controversy, p. 206.

« PreviousContinue »