Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 Holi

ness;

and lastly, The Divine Testimony of Holiness.'1 He then proceeds to establish his first point, thus:

1 End of Controversy, p. 205, 206.

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.

however, the reader will be entirely disappointed. Not one single line from any one of the Protestant confessions is adduced by the learned Doctor, in support of this grievous charge. Not an iota of proof, in fact, is furnished, in support of this most extraordinary accusation! What kind of conduct is this in one who professes to receive as the command of God, the precept, 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.'

But by what shew of evidence, then, does the Doctor support his accusation? By the following: seven short quotations, of three or four lines each, from Luther; four from Calvin; one from Beza; one from Fuller; one from Strype; one from Brandt; and one from Bossuet. Now of these it may be sufficient to observe, that some are the mere misrepresentations of enemies; others prove nothing whatever to the question; while the remainder are merely the unguarded and strong expressions of two or three good but fallible men, writing in the heat of controversy.

Dr. Milner knows very well, that in the matter of predestination, free will, &c., these Protestant writers agreed entirely with Augustine, one of the greatest of the early fathers, to whose name the church of Rome pays the highest honour. He knows full well that the very passages he quotes from Luther and Calvin might be easily matched by others from the works of this great saint of his own calendar. He knows, too, that if whole churches are to be judged of by single expressions, culled from the writings of individual fathers, the church of Rome may be proved guilty of Montanism by the works of Tertullian, and of Platonism by those of Origen. But he

H

« PreviousContinue »