PRESBYTERIANISM AND CATHOLICISM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIV, Issue 7, 12 June 1896, Page 21

PRESBYTERIANISM AND CATHOLICISM.

(A Reply to the Rev. J. Dickson, Presbyterian Minister, Temuka, by Rev. Father Lemenant des Chesnais, S.M.) LECTURE XL in Reply to Rev. J. Dickson. ( Continued ) Reply. — Scriptural Proofs of the Visibility of the Church.

That is your idea of a Church, but it is not Christ's idea, and you are again misleading your readers, bec.iuse you want, by every means, to keep them out of the true Church. I hope to be able to show you that your definition of the Church is a perversion of the Scriptures ot the New Testament. What do you mem by an invisible Church ? You mean all those who in different times and places believed in Christ, and worshipped Him in spirit and in truth, and who are known only to Him. Again you affirm that, no matter what Christian communion they belong to, Wesleyans, Baptists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, if they have a true faith in Christ through Him they shall be saved. But please, Rev. Sir, what proof do you give us of this assertion? You give none, except your own affirmation that it is certainly the right notion of the Church as established by Jesus Christ. If this Church is invisible, as you say it is, how can you prove its existence ? Is it by history ? No, because r istory is a record of visible facts. Is it by reason ? No, because reason admits only what can be proved, and you cannot prove the existence of a Church which, according to your admission, is invisible and known only to God. Will you attempt to prove it from the sacred Scriptures ? You cannot, because they prove the contrary of what you so unhesitatingly affirm. As I have already told you, the Son of God became visible to be our model, to redeem and save us. His public ministry, His preaching, His miracles were visible facts. He chose twelve Apostles and instructed them in His doctrine; that, too, was a visible fact. After His resurrection, He appeared visibly to His Apostles, He commissioned them to preach whatsoever He had commanded them, to baptise, to forgive sins, to consecrate bread and wine and change them into His own Body and Blood in a miraculous manner, to visit the sick, etc. After the coming down of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles began to preach, to found churches, to consecrate bishops (although you do not believe in them), to ordain priests, and administer the sacraments; was not all this a public ministry like that of their Divine Master ? When, later on, the Apostles wrote to the churches they had established, to the converts they had made, did they write to invisible souls and not to the faithful, good, bad, or indiiterent ol those various places? Did not our Blessed Lord compare His Church to a rlock '' Did He not call llimselt the Good Shepherd? Is not a Hock a visible thing '' Did nut the Apostles tell their disciples whom they had appointed over the churches to watch over their flocks, and how could they do so except by preaching, visiting, and ministetmg visibly unto them? Did not our Saviour tell us that in His Church there would always be good and bad people? Did he not sulfer and die tor all men ' Cannot all have His merits applied to them, it they like, and be saved 9 Did not the enly Christians assemble ever) Sunday to assist at Mass (which you deny) and to hear the word of God? Was not this, again, a public act? Jesus said that His Church was to be one, how could it be one, if people of all denominations could belong to it? He sent His Apostles all all over the world to tell all to enter. How could they have done so, if, as you erroneously pretend, people could be saved in any Church? The Church is a visible society, like the men who compose it and the Apostles who founded it ; it is mere nonsense to talk of an invisible Church. Christians who belong to the Church must adore God in spirit and in truth, by faith, hope, and charity. Their virtuous deeds are known only to God ; but the members of the visible Church of Christ are known both to God and to us. It is composed of all those who have been baptised, and the faithful members are those who, having been baptised, believe and practice what Jesus Christ has revealed to us, and is proposed to us by His Church. The Church may be defined : That society which Jesus Christ set up to teach mankind the true religion and train in sanctity the future citizens of heaven. It the Church were an invisible society, how could you prove your union with it ? Would Jesus be a God of truth if he approved of contrary doctrines and did not care whether men believe or deny His word? Would He not be a God ot disunion, division and discord if He approved of contradictory tenets ' What was the good of His coming to be our teacher it we aie not obliged to believe Him in all things? You tell us (b) that the idea of a visible Church, with a visible organisation is an invention of Romanists. Hear your words : " Romanists find this idea of the Church to suit their purpose, and :-o they form a visible ecclesiastical organisation, that has no foundation in Scripture, with its priests, bishops, cardinals and popes, out of which there is no salvation. This is the fundamental error running through all our friend's lectures." I have given you ample proofs from Scriptures showing that the ecclesiastical hier-

archy is of apostolical institution, and consequently Divine. History is there to testify that popes, bishops, priests, have ever existed from the time of the Apostles. Even to-day, not only Roman Catholics, but the Greeks, the Copts, the Syrians, the Anglicans believe that the hierarchy is a Divine institution. Before the Reformation no one seriously controverted it, except Aerius and one or two fanatics who could find no followers. Do you mean to say that a small, insignificant body of the Presbyterians is right, and that all the rest of Christendom is wrong ? The matter of fact is this : Calvin and Knox wanted to govern without any hierarchy, after their fashion, and this is why they revived the long forgotten and universally abhorred novelty of Aerius, making a priest of every one and denying the power of the priesthood. If you should require the proofs of all these assertions, I will produce them, but I think that what I have said in my lectures and in my reply to you is more than sufficient, if carefully considered, to substantiate them. Why do you calumniate the Catholic Church by saying : " I ask Paul how I am to be saved, and he says, ' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.' I ask a Romanist and he says, * Get into the Church.' The Scriptures make Christ the way of salvation, the Romanist makes what he calls the Church the way of salvation. I prefer the Scripture any day." Reply. — Scriptural proofs that there is no Salvation out of the True Church. Romanists, as you are pleased to call us through contempt, make Jesus only the way of salvation, and you know it well, but you want to keep up the prejudice against the Church by saying that they do not. Is it by deliberate falsehoods, sir, that you think to glorify Jesus, whose interests you profess to have so much at heart ? You appeal to the Scriptures, well I accept the authority of the Scriptures, and from them I will convince you, if you are in good faith, that it is only in the Catholic Church Jesus is perfectly known and loved, and that " out of it, except in the case of innocent and perfectly involuntary ignorance, there is no salvation. St. Paul, whom you have quoted, says ? " We are not as many, adulterating the word of God, but with sincerity, we speak in Christ (ii. Cor. ii. 17). This text shows that the word of God must be preached, as St. Paul did with sincerity and integrity, without any adulteration, could you point out to me, Sir, one single Church, outside the Catholic Church, where the word of God is not adulterated? Do you not yourselt deny whole books of the Scriptures which are .is certainly inspired as those you admit, simply because they contain doctrines which do not coincide with your Calvinistic and Presbyterian theories ? St. Paul did not appeal to the judgment of the early Christians and make them the judges of what they weie to believe or reject ; behold how he spoke to them : "Do I speak to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be a servant ot Christ (Galat. 1. 10). Our Blessed Loid Himselt declares that it is from His Holy Church, that is, from His Apostles and their successors, that we are to learn His doctrine and wh.it we are to do to please Him. "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heithen " (MaUh. wiii. 17) Speaking ot the conversion ot nations to Christianity, our Lord says : " Oilier sheep I have, which are not oi this 'told ; them also I must bring and they shall hear My voice, and there sh ill l-e one told a-nl o-ie Sh pherd " ''John, x. 16). It salvation could be obtained out ot the true I hurch of Chi Ist, \\h) should they .ill be bi ought into it th it theie might be one told, one Shepherd ? It thei cis only one told of Christ, it He be the one Shepherd ot th.it fold, therefore out of the fold of Christ, winch is the Church, there is no salvation; is not this sciiptural and Divine teaching ' Try to reconcile this with your theory of an invisible Church consisting ot sects as different from each other as light is trom darkness. Is it not said again in the acts, " That all the new converts entered the Church ot Christ, the Lord daily added to the Church such as should be saved" (Acts, ii. [J). If the new converts to Christianity were added to the Church of Christ, in order to save their souls, therefore, those who do not enter the visible Church of Christ as the early Christian converts did, cannot be saved ; is not this evident ? Is it not the teaching of Jesus Christ and ot His inspired Apostles? How can you, then, deny the necessity of entering the true Church and still persist in calling yourself a follower of Christ? You are not a follower of Christ, you are a follower of the mendacious Calvin and the apostate Knox, whatever you may say to the contrary. This is so evident that the Church of Scotland, in the Westminster Confession, approved by the General Assembly in 1647, declared : "The visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law) consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion '' (Confess, of Faith, chapt. xxv.). How can you make this harmonise with your invisible Church, consisting of men professing contrary doctrines, entirely separated from one another. Believing in the Lord Jesus is indeed, I grant, necessary for salvation, but it is not sufficient, : we must also, according to his prescription, observe all those , things whatsoever He has commanded us. " Observe all those things whatsoever I have commanded you " (Matth., ; xxviii., 20.) The belief in His doctrine and the keeping of : His commandments are both necessary and indispensable for salvation. True faith in Jesus Christ consists, therefore, in

belief and good works, or the faithful observance of His precepts ; you cannot separate one from the other without contradicting the Scripture. Hence it is manifest that, as there is but one true faith, one true doctrine of Christ, there is also but one true Church containing all the truths revealed by Christ and enforcing the observance of all His precepts. Has not our Blessed Lord told, us " Beware of false prophets (Like Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc,) who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you shall know them." (Matth., vii., 15-19). Were not all the reformers, as is clear from history, ravenous wolves and seducers of the people? Did they not preach the most perverse doctrine? Are not their lives a disgrace and a shame? St. Paul says : " I beseech you, brethren, to mark those who cause dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and to avoid them, for by pleasing speeches and good words ' they ' seduce the hearts of the innocent '' (Rom., xvi., 17). Can you reconcile this text with your theory of an invisible Church ? How could you avoid false teachers, seducers who deceive others by pleasing words, if the Church were an invisible society? Does not St. Paul say that "If an angel were to preach besides that which he had taught, they should not hear him (Gal., 1-6). If the apostolic teaching cannot be adulterated, is it not necessary to have an infallible Church to teach us accurately? What is the use of a fallible Church ? Who would listen to her ? If there is not an infallible Church, then Christianity is a fraud, since people have no means to ascertain what is true or false, necessary or not for salvation, as is too evident from the contrary teaching of the separated Churches, which pretend all to be right and to lead souls to heaven, yet each deny what is affirmed by others as absolutely necessary. It is, as I said, a perfect chaos and confusion of tongues. Who would dare to say that this is the work of a God of an infinite wisdom? If the Catholic Church is not right, there is no Christianity at all; common sense is sufficient to settle this question. The battle of the day is between Catholicism and Freethought. If you want to be a true Christian you must be a Catholic. Third credential. — A Christian Church claiming infallibility should possess the credentials Christ gave of His heavenly mission, in the first sermon of His ministry that He preached. "The Spirit of the Lord," he sa\s, " is upon me because he has annointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised and preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke, iv., 18.) After this text, the Rev. J. Dickson asks- "Does your Church preach a free Gospel to the poor, or does it place the poor man on the same footing as the rich, and make money an indispensible condition to his receiving any spiritual blessing? " Reply to thk Accusation 01 Greed tor Monny.

My dear Mr. Dickson, no Pope would speak as )ou do. j What right have you to determine on what conditions the Church infallibility is to be admitted or rejected? The conditions of infallibility , it it exists, are to be determined by God alone and not by )ou. \\ c have to accept it as established by Jesus Christ and exercised by His Apostles and His Church, not as understood byjouor anybody else. In the Chnstian school we are all scholars to learn the doctrine of Christ, not teachers to dictate to Hun or to His Church which He h,is appointed to instiuct and guide us. However, I may tell >ou that the Catholic Church is emphatically the Church of the poor. In every Catholic parish as much, nay moi e, cue is taken of the poor than of the rich, No money is e\er asked is an indispensable condition to receive any spintu il benefit. When our poor people make an ottering to a priest, church or school they do it lrccly, and otten most liberally, il we consider the small means they have at their command. Why are you continually harping on that note, as it greed of money was the principal spring of our priests and saintl) religious and nuns, whereas if you were better acquainted with them you would admire their love of the poor, their disinterestedness and their spirit ot self-sacrifice. 2. You next speak of penitential observances and ceremonies and purgatory as contrary to the ransom paid by Christ for our redemption. Kindly read what I ha\c written on these subjects, and jou will have to admit, if you are candid, that they do not interfere with the merits of Christ, but, on the contrary, set them forth to the best advantage. 3. You next ask : " Does your Church preach liberty for the bruised ? Has liberty or slavery been its watchword along the line of history ? That Slavery has nenerbeen the Watchword 01 the Catholic Church. If you were acquainted with history, you would not ask such a question. The most bitter enemies of the Catholic Church have confessed that whatever might be said against her, it must be admitted that she has ever been the triend of liberty. Who emancipated the slaves ? Was it not the Catholic Church ? Who preached the universal brotherhood of mankind and their equality before God and before the law ' Who established religious Orders tor the redemption ot captives? Who sent missionaries to Africa, Asia, Amcnca, India, to look after poor slaves and savages? Was it not

again this same Catholic Church ? Even in our own days who has advocated the anti-slavery association more eloquently than Bishop Lavigerie? Have we not several religious communities whose object is the amelioration of slaves and savages? If you speak of spiritual liberty, the Catholic Church gives us the liberty of the children of God. Catholics are not the slaves of ignorance because they know exactly what they have to believe and to do in order to please God. Through the sacraments they receive grace and consolation to perform their several duties and bear patiently the trials of this short life. This is the liberty spoken of by Christ and His Apostles, and that liberty the Catholic Church gives to all her faithful children through Jesus Christ. 6. The doctrine of salvation by faith I have retuted and I challenge you to refute the arguments I brought forward to show that both faith and works must go together it we want to save our immortal souls. Second credential of the Rev. J. Dickson.*— A Christian Church claiming infallibility should preach a Gospel of love, instead of ever trading on the fears of men. Fear is a sure sign of imperfection. And then having said so, my rev. friend attacks what he calls the whip of the confessional, the power of withholding absolution, the terrors of purgatory, the punishments of hell, which he compares to Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors. Reply to the Accusation against the Catholic Church of Trading on the Fears of Men by the Doctrinb of Purgatory, Hell and the Whip of the Confessional.

If there is anything particularly recommended in the Bible it is the fear of God and of His vindictive justice. Let me quote only a few texts : " The root of wisdom is to fear the Lord " (Eccle-li., 25). " Give place to the fear of the Most High: for the fear of God is all wisdom" (Eccles., Ixix., 18). " Be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long" (Prov., xxiii., 17). " The fear of the Lord is honour and glory, and gladness and a crown of joy '' (Ecc. 1., ii.). " They that fear the Lord will not be incredulous to His Word " (Ecc. 11. , 18). " The fear of the Lord is a Paradise of blessing " (Eccles., xl., 28). " Fear the Lord, all ye his saints ; for there is no want to them that fear Him" (Ps., xxxiii., 10). "The fear of the Lord isja fountain of life " (Ps., xiv., 27). " Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord ; he shall delight exceedingly in His commandments" (Ps., 111., i.). "A wise man will fear in everything " (Eccles., xviii., 27). " Fear ye not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear Him that can destroy both soul and body into hell " (Matth., x., 28). " The Lord will do the will of them that fear Him " (Ps., 144, 19). " I chastise my body," said St. Paul, "and I bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others I myselt should become a castaway" (I. Cor., ix., 27;. Are we not also told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling ? And in spite of this crushing Scriptural evidence the Rev. J. Dickson tells us that a mark of the true Church must ba the banihhing of fear. Is this not a most palpable and criminal per\erbion of the Scriptures which everywhere tell us to fear God and keep His commandments, and assure us that this is the principal thing man must never lose sight of 1 Our Blessed Lord tells us to dread the torments of hell. The Rev. J. Dickson tells us that to cast out tear, that hell is not be dogmatised upon, and that tear will never keep anyone out of it, that is, he flatly, purposely denies the teaching of the Scriptures, of Jesus Chi im. and ot His holy Church, and he calls himself a lover of truth and of the word of God. Is not this a mockery and a h\Docrisy most inconceivable ' I told him that two things only .ire ol faith about purgatory, namely : 1. That there is a Purgatory ; 2. That the souls in Purgatory may be assisted by our prayers. Any revelation or teaching of doctors rests on the solidity of the argumenta which support their sentiment and has nothing to do with defined tiuths, but should be respectfully examined and received, 'not as dogmatical definitions, but as expressing the mind ot learned, pious and experienced men. Concerning hell, we are to believe. 1. That hell really exists ; 2. That as the bliss of Paradise is to last forever, so is the misery of hell to endure for all eternity, 3. That none in hell shall be punished more than he deserves; 4. That both the body and soul of the damned shall be tormented ; 5. We do not precisely know what the fire of hell is like, since this point has ne\er been defined. The common opinion is that it is a material fire, which will act on the soul, just as in the present life material objects affect, and cause joy or suffering. This is the opinion of the Latin Church, which seems to be the most in harmony with the word of Holy Scriptures. The Rev. J. Dickson has mistaken the pagan notion of hell and the sentiments of some learned doctors for the dogmatical teaching of the Church. Had he read attentively my lecture on hell, he would have avoided this blunder. The attacks of my rev. friend against confession are unwarrantable. You will never hear of a fervent Catholic speaking of confession as a torment It is our greatest consolation. No improper question is ever put in the confessional ; the would-be declarations of apostates, like those quoted by my friend, are gross calumnies which have been refuted many times. Protestants should be very careful not to implicitly believe the accusations of apostates. It is unlair to si) that because theclogical books treat of delicate subjects for the instruction of the clergy who have to direct

sinners and advise them, the Catholic doctrine is not perfectly pure and moral. Lawyers, medical men have to deal a great deal more with dangerous matters. Who would accuse them of being immoral, because they have books referring to those things which they have to know in order to discharge the duties of their responsible office? If the Rev. J. Dickson believes in the Bible, he must admit the necessity of confession for the remission of sins committed after baptism, when a priest can be had. Can my friend deny that our Blessed Lord gave to His Apostles the power of fortifying sins? "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them,' and whose sins you shall rttain they are retained" (John, xx., 21-23). Tne Apostles had the power to forgive penitent sinners and to retain the sins of those who will not promise to amend, to forgive their enemies, to repair the scandals they have given, to make restitution, etc. Could God forgive anyone who is not sorry for what he has done or who would not promise not to do it again ? And yet my friend finds fault with the withholding of absolution, when the penitent is not properly disposed ? As to this power having been continued after the Apostles and transmitted to their successors, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church, history is there to show that they have always exercised it from the Apostolic times, and that all Christian nations believed that Jesus had given this power to them, so that no one can attack the dogma of confession without denying the Scriptures and authentic history. The various canons referred to by our separated friends refer to the time at which confession should be made and other points of discipline concerning it, but the dogma was always believed by the whole Christian world is still except by a few sects. The Ritualists of the Church of England believe in confession and enforce it.