who, think you, is the head of the church? Who out Christ himself? Who else is fit to be its head-its source of influence and government? I will produce the passages of Scripture in proof of Christ's headship presently. 66 But the Catholics say that the Pope is the head of the church. Ah, is he? Where is the proof that he is? Now there is nothing which irritates a Catholic so soon as to ask him for proof. Proof, indeed!" he says. "Do you ask proof of an infallible church? What is the use of infallibility, if we must prove every thing? These are truly most degenerate days. The time was when nobody demanded proof; but now every little sprig of a Protestant must have reasons to support assertions. He calls for proof. And he must have it from the Bible. He will not believe any thing in religion unless some text can be cited in support of it. Things have come to a pretty pass indeed." It is even so. We plead guilty to the charge, For every thing alleged to be a doctrine of Christianity, we confess we do require some proof out of the writings of some evangelist or apostle. And since our Catholic brethren will not gratify us by adducing the scriptural warrant for believing the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be the head of the church, we will do them the favor of consulting the Scriptures for them. Well, we begin with Genesis, and we go through to Revelation, searching all the way for some proof that the Pope is the head of the church. But so far are we from finding any evidence that he is the head of the church, that we find not a particle of proof that he is that or any thing. We find no account of any such character as a Popenot a word about him. The subject of the proposition, that is, the Pope, does not seem to be known to that book at all. I really do not wonder that it frets a Catholic when we send him to the Bible for proof that the Pope is the head of the church. But though we discover nothing in the Bible about a Pope, yet we find much about the head of the church. In Ephesians, 1: 22, 23, Christ is said to be "the head over all things to the church, which is his body." Now, if the church is his body, surely he must be the head of it, as well as head over all things to it. Will any one say that the Pope of Rome is the head of Christ's body? That is shocking. And yet the Catholics are told that they must believe it; and seeing they cannot help it, they do somehow or other contrive to believe it. In Eph. 5: 23, it is explicitly declared that "Christ is the head of the church." The same is repeated in Col. 1: 18-" He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church." Our brethren of the Catholic church have long been in the habit of asking where our religion was before the Reformation. They may see where one doctrine of it was fifteen hundred years before the Reformation. One would suppose, from the way they talk, that they supposed the Bible was written a considerable time after the Reformation, and that it was then got up to support the Protestant heresy! I might ask them, but that they do not like to be asked questions, lest they should not be able to answer them, where their doctrine of the Pope's headship of the church was when the New Testament was written, i. e. some seventeen hundred and fifty or eighteen hundred years ago. But I will withdraw the question. It may seem unkind to press it. Popery. Now, since the Bible says that Christ is the head of the church, if the Pope also is, there must be two heads of the church. But there is only one body. Why should there be two heads? Is the church a monster? Besides, if there had been another head, Christ would have been spoken of in the Scriptures as one of the heads of the church, or as a head of the church. But he is called the head of the church. The article is definite, denoting only one. There is not a syllable in the Bible about another head. Indeed the language of the Bible does not admit of there being another. Yet the Catholics say there is another; and it is their Pope. "Christ being absent, they say, it is necessary there should be a visible human head to represent him on earth." Now the Pope, they say, is this visible head of the church--the head that you can see. But is their assumption correct, that Christ is absent? Is he ab sent? Hear: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Was he absent from Paul? He says: "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." A visible head! What do we want of a visible head? Of what use to us-the part of the body hereis a head a way off at Rome? It is no better than a caput mortuum to us. But what if we admit the possibility of a visible human head of the church, who made the Pope that head? Did he inherit this also from St. Peter? Was Peter head of the church? He, more modest than his pretended successors, does not any where claim that title. I know the Catholics hold him to be the rockthe foundation of the church; but I really did not know that they regarded him, whom, however they exalt, they still consider but as a mere man, as capable of being head of the church too. It is not too much to speak of Christ as both the foundation and head of the church, but to speak of Peter, poor Peter, as we are accustomed to call him when we think of the scene of the denial, as both foundation and head of the church, is really carrying the matter rather far. How little Peter thought he was both, when "he went out and wept bitterly "" How little he knew of himself! The Pope the head of the church!! Then the church is the Pope's body!! Alas for the church! 15. The Power to Forgive Sins. Seculum modestum I rather suppose will not be the designation by which the 19th century will be distinguished in history from her sister centuries. I know not whether any age has been more remarkable for cases of unfounded pretension than the present. The case, however, of which I am to take notice, did not originate in the 19th century. It has existed many hundred years. I do not wonder at its surviving the dark ages, but that it should have lived so far into the luminous 19th does somewhat surprise me. The pretension to which I allude is that made by the Catholic priesthood. What do you think it is which they pretend they can do? Forgive sins. They pretend that they have power over sins, to remit or retain them. They claim that the prerogative of pardon is lodged with them. And that is the reason why they receive confessions. Confession to a priest would be a farce, if it was not thought that he could forgive. That The first thing that strikes me is the contrariety of this notion to common sense. The idea of being pardoned by any other than the being offended, seems absurd. What! a fellow-sinner of a priest pardon sins against God! It is as if of two debtors, one should play the creditor and forgive the other his debt, without any consultation with the real creditor. would be a strange way of getting rid of debts. I always thought he to whom the debt is due ought to have a say 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 exactedthat the real creditor would appear and make his demand. Then it would be a poor come off 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. Catholics 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." It is not so easily obliterated. But is there not Scripture in support of the priests' claim? See John, 20: 23. Does not Christ say to his disciples: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained ?" Yes, he says that to his disciples -the apostles. But pray, what right have the priests |