The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-21 00:00:00

Church of Christ, and your church is not a true Church,
but the synagogue of Satan ; your Popes and cardinals,
and priests and bishops are ' false apostles, deceitful
workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of
Christ.' The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord, ARE WE." And, I ask, has not the
Greek priest as much right, at least, as the priest of Rome
to speak thus ? Judge, then, how idle it is to imagine
that the quoting of such passages as these accomplishes
anything for Ins purpose. That which he must prove is
his right to them ; he must give us some good reason to
believe that wherever the word " church " is used in
scripture it means the Church of Rome ; and when can he
prove that ? When he proves that darkness is light—
that pride is humility—that cruelty is mercy —that fals-
hood is truth—that a bloody persecuting spirit is the
spirit of the meek and lowly Jesus—that the strumpet
seated upon many waters, with a cup full of
abominations in her hand, drunken with the blood
of the saints and of the martyrs of Jesus, is the
chaste and holy and spotless bride of the Lamb.
This question lies at the foundation of the whole con-
troversy, and is of the utmost importance. If the Church
of Rome is the Church of Christ, then are the Papists
right in applying to her the promises made to the church,
I, therefore, direct the attention of my Roman Catholic
hearers prominently to this question, What right have
you to assume that your church is the Church of Christ ?
There are two propositions which I undertake to main-
tain, and I hereby challenge Mr. Anderdon to their calm
discussion, either orally or in writing, as he may prefer.

Ist—That the church of Rome and the church of Christ
are two distinct things, and, 2d, that they are not only
distinct, but in every prominent and important feature
diametrically the opposite to each other.
_ _

The rev. lecturer was pleased to be a little pleasant on
the subject of the church, as I am told, in his former lec-
ture. He compared the protestant church to one of the
old-fashioned safes for preserving documents with all the
pavers burnt to cinders, and the Church of Rome to one
of Milner's patent safes with the documents preserved.
It struck me that such allusions to burning the Word of
God and to locking up the Word of God were very con-
rageoua in a Romish Priest.. The Scriptures are, indeeds
kept safe by them. They have taken away the key of
knowledge, and neither enter in themselves, nor permit
others to enter. The Church of Rome did, indeed, lock up
the Scriptures. The chest in which she put them was
trebly locked and barred. The first bolt was a dead lan-
guage, by which they were concealed. The second was
the express prohibition against the reading of them with-
out the permission of the confessor; and the third and
worst of all was-the bar of councils and traditions, which
made void the Word of God. Thus the pope locked up
the Word of God' and put the key in his pocket. He
neither used it hhaself, nor permitted others to use it.
But there is a maskr-key which God had never given to
the pope, and He opened the chest. One touch of His
finger turned that key—drove back the bars and bolts of
the prison-house, in which His word was bound—unfet-
tered human thought, and human heart,, and human con-
science from papal chains and bondage.— and set the soul
of man at liberty. Since then bible-burning has been
the part of popish tactics, but the more they burn it the
more it multiplies. The very flames they kindle seem as
a beacon-light to warn mankind against them, and lead
the souls of sinners to the quiet waters of pardon, truth,
and peace. _ _ _

Ir.—The lecturer treated as to some assertions. Let me
give you a few specimens of these. First, in order to
depreciate the right of private- judgment,. he made the
strange assertion that he who interpreted the law, assumed
authority nearly equal to that of the legislator himself.
Thus the Christian, who opens the • Word of God and
reads it, and prays to God to helps him to understand it
ands to keep it, is, according to the lecturer,- guilty of
assuming to himself the prerogative of God. The asser-
tion is so reckless, and involves, so many gratuitous
assumptions, that it is difficult to doal seriously with it.
As; however, I have not the advantage of any holy bones
or beads to run to when I return home, you must excuse
my treating it as seriously as possible:
In the first place, then, I deny altogether the:parallel
assumed between the legislator among' men and God, as
the giver of his word to his Church. The human legis-
lator enacts laws, but he has no power. to secure their
permanence nor their authority. God, otaithe other hand,
not only enacts his laws for his Church, bit secures their
permanence and their authority :—" This is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
saith the Lord : I will put my laws into theiismind, and
write them in their hearts ; and I will be to theism God, and
they shathbe to me a people." (Heb. viii. 10.), So in the
very first step the analogy assumed breaks down, But, in
the next place, I deny the parallel assumed. etween the
judge upon the bench and the legislator whose laws he
interprets ::the business of the latter is simply to decide
which is the will of the former. Were the judges indeed,
to set aside-the law, and substitute his owniwill instead,
then wouldikie be intruding into the office of the lawgiver,
but in doings so he would be renouncing the of the
judge : thus- in the second stage the analogy altogether
fails. Thirdly, I deny that any analogy exists between
the judge upon the bench and the Bible Chriitian. The
judge is interpreting the laws for others—the Christian is
learning " and obeying" the law of God for himself. The
human judge is bringing others to account for transgres-
sion against the law—the Christian is informing himself
of the will of his God, knowing that for his with, as well
as for his conduct, he must render an account. Again,
therefore, the analogy breaks down.
But it struck me that this comparison is highly illus-
trative of the blasphemous nature of the cairns asserted
by the Church of Rome. Mind, the assertion is this—that
he who undertakes to interpret the word of God assumes
a power slickest the same as that of God bingself thus,
confessedly, the Church of Rome puts herself in the place
of God ; mad not only the Church of Roma; but every-
individual priest of that Church, does this, for the priest
is the exponent to the people—he undertakes to guide
their opinion—he makes himself responsible for their
faith—he interprets for them, and interprets authorita-
tively too;_ so that, by his own confession, this man makes
himself equal with God. Is not this the very character
described an the Scriptures, " Who, as God; sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2nd
These. ii. &) Is not this, indeed, to have - dominion over
the faith of the people, the very thing whieltSt. Paul disa-
vows ? Is not this to "lord it over God's .heritage," the
very thing which St. ,Peter forbids ?
This-same assumption is exhibited in the next assertion
which I orill refer to. The rev. lecturer-defined Protes-
tantiswsto be simple rebellion against Divine authority—
the first: manifestation of which, he saidiaras in Eve when
she ate the forbidden fruit. This act, he said, was the
following of human private judgment isis opposition to the
authority of God ; and to this the lecturer compared the
conduct of the Protestant in rejecting the authority of
the, Holy See! Now, on this I remark (I)—That it
affords a striking illustration of the.authority claimed for
the See of Rome. He that refuses, to obey the Pope is
gnilty of the same sin as Eve when she violated the com-
mand, " Thou shalt not eat thereof?! So much is plain.
There is no possibility of mistake: o—Then I proceed
toosk on what ground such authority, is claimed for the
Bishop of Rome ? Is not this a proper question to ask ?
Itsit not a necessary question? Will you give yourself
over blindfold to the dictation of.Se mass who tells you that
he has the same authority as God himself ? And that for
no better reason than because he.tells you so ? Is this
the ground of your faith? Is, this the foundation on
which you rest your soul? Oh ! but you will say, I obey
the Pope because he is the: successor of St. Peter. Now
mark the inconsistency of-this—you first-proscribe private
judgment in order to set up the, authority of your Pope,
and then you appeal to private judgment to establish that
authority. For, how ranch do you settle by private judg-
ment before you can assume that the Pope is the successor
of St. Peter ? Must you-not prove• first, that Peter himself,
in his own person, had, that authority ? And must you
not prove that Peterwassto have successors to himself in.
the exercise of that, authority? And, after you have set-.
tled all this by an appeal-to your own private judgments,
must you not then prove, at the same tribunal, that the,
Pope is that successor? And even if you succeed in,
proving this, will it-not remain to be settled whether this
promise is absolute, or conditional ? And, if the latter,
whether the cosnlitions, have been fulfilled by the Pope.?
And suppose, new, you succeed in proving all this, hew is
it proved ? By appeal• to private judgment, the very, right
which you denounce, and the exercise of which you de-
clare to be rebellion and infidelity. (3)—But whois it
that really does;rebel, against the plain command of God ?
Who is it that permits what God forbids, and; forbids
what God permits ? Who is it that makes moist the
Word of God by her traditions ? Who is it that, when
God says, "thou shalt not bow down," says yestmay bow
down, and not only so, but you must bow down to them ?
Who is it that, when God says, " thou shalt worship THE
LORD your GiNs,and HIM ONLY shalt thouserve," delibe-
rately teaches that you may and must worship. the Virgin
and the. saints ? Who is it that, when God says, " the
blood of Jesua Christ cleanses from all sin," deliberately
alters t.he testimony of God, and says that it does,not, but
that your sins must be remitted by indulgences ? Who is
it, that, when God says, "there is no, condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus," declares that this is false,
that there is still left condemnation, which her masses
must be purchased to remove ? Who, is that, when God
says, "obey the powers that be," declares I will not obey,
but command them, and that it is, absolutely necessary for
every human being to be subject to, the Pope ? Who is it
that, when God says, "thou shalt do no murder," teaches
that murder is lawful, when the interests of the church
require it ? Who is it that, when God says, " thou shalt
love thine enemies," &c., declares that heretics may be
persecuted even to death, and, under this name, has ac-
tually and does still perseeute the people of God.? Who is
it that, when God says, "search the Scriptures," impera-
tively forbids her people. to do so, under pain of excommu-
nication ? Who is this arch-offender, the originator of
all schism in Christendom—the fountain of all abomina-
tions in society P—The Church of Rome. So much for:
rebellion against authority.
But the reverend gentleman was pleased to describe
the difference between Protestantism and infiderstY
The differences—for he did allow a difference, —runs
thus Infidelity pure," said he, " rejects the divine
authority, speaking through the moral government of
the universe and the written word ; Protestantism re-

jects the same authority speaking through the Church,
It never occurred to the lecturer that in thus distinguish-

ing between the authority of the word and that of the
Church, i.e., his Church, he was making an admission
fatal to himself. He unconsciously admitted, you per-
ceive, that a man may reject the authority of his Church,
and yet not reject the authority of the word of God. We
thank him for the admission, and now go on to say, by
way of improvement of his statement, the Protestant
rejects the authority of his Church because he acknow-
ledges the authority of the word of God.
But, after describing Protestantism thus, as simple
rebellion against divine authority, as, in fact, the same
in spirit as infidelity, commonly so called—after repre-
senting the exercise of private judgment to be the claiming
of a right to reckon the word of God to mean anything
we please—the lecturer somewhat inconsistently found
out that Protestants, after all, have " a tradition of their
own." So that " the question is not between Scripture
and tradition, but between one tradition and another."
We were rather curious to hear how he would endeavour
to establish this point; we expected, at last, that we
should be treated with an argument, but we were mis-
taken—the lecturer had no idea of coming from his
" iambics," and descending into the prosaic ground of
reasoning ; and instead of an argument he gave us a quo-
tation. And who do you suppose was his chosen autho-
rity by wjiich to prove that, after all, we Protestants set
tqa OUP own tradition the sermons of la ligtnnzan t