THE

INFIDELITY

OF

ROMANISM.

LONDON:

R. THEOBALD, AGENT,

26, PATERNOSTER ROW,

1854.



 



,

THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM .

•

CHRISTIAN faith, or the faith by which a man becomes a

Christian, is the subjection of the soul to the testimony of

God. It is the reception of a divine testimony into the

soul, so that God Himself is believed. Superstition, on the

contrary, is the subjection of man's mind in the things
of

God, to any authority, be it what it may, for subjection
to

which there is no warrant in the word of God.

The results of superstition are as various as the objects to

which reverence is superstitiously rendered. But whatever

commands this reverence, gets between the soul and God,

and thus practically supplants Him and takes His place.

God indeed may not be entirely forgotten; but as far as
other

objects interpose between the soul and Him, so far He
is

hidden. God's presence does not act immediately upon the

conscience as light, nor elevate the heart to Him as love.

Superstition is often called faith, whilst in reality it is the

very opposite. Faith brings in the authority
of God,

and has to do immediately with Him and His revelation,

whilst superstition connects the religious element of man's

nature with that which is not of God or warranted by His

revelation. It makes use of His name to displace His

authority; and thus it deceives. The great object
of faith

is God, as made known to us in the revelation which he

has made of Himself. Divine testimony carries direct di­

vine authority, and is a revelation of God. The' conse­

quence is, that faith brings the soul into God's own pre­

sence; and hence, all that is in, man and
all his works,

are brought into the light of that presence, and are judged
'

in it. But God having in Christ revealed Himself in love,

faith-which embraces His revelation-produces a sweet
'

and blessed confidence in God Himself, thus revealed and

known as love,-as a Saviour ... God, who has given His own

Son, that he might by himself purge. our sins. Thus, while

aU the believer's sin is judged by his conscience in the light,
of God"s own presence, it is all Fut away by the work of



4 THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM.

Christ according to the demands of God's holiness, and
he has Ct peace with God," and walks with Him in newness
of life.

Thus faith puts the believer into immediate connection
with God; a connection founded on His own testimony,
received by the operation of Divine power in the soul:
hence also faith has its practical existence in real confidence
in God Himself. The soul is reconciled to Him; and God,

by the revelation He has given of Himself, becomes to the
soul the moral measure of right and wrong. Hence faith
is exactly the opposite to superstition, although this latter
assumes its name and forms, and may be connected, as it

ever is, however remotely, with the idea of the true God.
This last circumstance leads to another important feature,

at which I have already hinted. While superstition hides
the true God, and wholly falsifies our notions of Him, this
connection of the superstitious object of reverence with
some idea of the true God, attaches the authority of
His name and supreme power to the object of our super­
stition, and sanctions, by that authority, all the moral de­

gradation involved in our connection with it; save so far
as natural conscience revolts and tells a truer tale of God

than superstition. But then, alas! the tendency of natural
conscience in this last case is to exalt man above religion,
and so to produce infidelity, and even atheism, if atheism be

possible to the mind of man. It tends at least to make
men reason as atheists against the superstition which re­
volts their conscience. Human will is essentially atheisti­

cal, for it is not subject to God's will, and it prompts to

reasoning against the existence of that which it. does not

like; but God has a testimony in conscience, which, after all,
the will can never stifle. Where man has reduced what

bears the name of God below the standard of natural con­

science and feeling, the mind will use this, if it dare, to
throw off the authority of the God which it dislikes.

It may here be objected, that what I have said of im­
mediate association with God by the reception of Divine

testimony, sets aside ministry. I answer, Nat in the least.
The Ministry of the word is a divine ordinance, for the

purpose of bringing the testimony of God to the soul of

man; and, if exercised really in the power of. the Holy
Ghost, the effect of it is to bring God Himself in Christ

present to the soul. A human priesthood places itself
between the soul and God: true ministry brings God> by)



THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM. 5

the word, present to the soul. This is the essential differ­

ence between the true character of each.

It is evident that faith must be founded on the testimony
of God, otherwise it is not God who is believed. Further,
it must be founded on His testimony alone. I must be ..

lieve, because God Himself has spoken, or I do not believe
God. " Whoso," says John the Baptist of the blessed

Lord, "Whoso has received His Testimony, has set to his
seal that God is true." So" Abraham believed God, and it

was counted to him for righteousness." God graciously
added in the former case miracles to confirm the word, as

it is written" Confirming the word by signs following."
But faith rested on the testimony of God. Indeed, if only
founded on the miracles, it was without value.

"

Many
believed in Him when they saw the miracles which He

did, but Jesus did not commit Himself to them, for He

knew what was in man.
"

Such then, practically, is faith. It is the soul's reception,
by divine power, of the testimony of God. God being
thus known by faith as He has graciously revealed Him­

self, faith lives as in His presence, and in communion

with Him. I do not enter here into the way in which He

has revealed Himself, blessed as this subject is above all
others. The knowledge of God as our Father, and commu­
nion with Him, through the Son, by the grace of the Holy
Spirit, are the portion of the soul which has found peace
through the blood of the cross. Such is the Christian's

portion; but this is not my present subject, but one less

happy, though now much needed.
A person may be sincere in his convictions, and may fancy

that what he believes has been communicated by God to
others : but if he does not believe it himself on God's testi­

mony, his faith is not faith in the scriptural acceptation of
the word. It may be faith in man, but it is not faith in God.

In such a case, the person does not believe God. Now I

shall show, in the following brief remarks, that Romanism,
in its main doctrines and practices, is really infidel (not

avowedly perhaps, but really) in all that concerns the ground
of our soul's fellowship with God. I ask my reader's calm
and attentive consideration of my remarks, before he rejects
this judgment of Romanism.

Christianity is the revelation, not merely of God's law, or
of God's will, but of God Himself; and" GOD IS LOVE."

It is the perfect revelation of His love in the gift of His



6 . THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANI SM.

-blessed Son; so that the believing soul, however poor and

guilty, may know, God as love, and as
love towards itself,

sin being perfectly and for ever put away
for the believer,

so that he may approach God without fear;
for "fear has

torment," and love would take it away. God
cannot bear

sin in His presence, .neither indeed
can the renewed and

repentant soul; hence the "God
oflove" has put it away

through Christ, in order to admit us to
His presence. Thus

God has reconciled us to Himself, that we might enjoy His

perfect and gracious love. Being reconciled to Him,
the

same love supplies to us, in the midst of our infirmities
and

failures, the grace which we need for the
maintenance of

our communion with Him, so that even our weaknesses bé­

come the means of our knowing more fully His goodness
and His delight in blessing us. Hence, says the Apostle

John, in speaking of Christians,
" We have known and be­

lieved the love that God hath to us." Christian faith, then,

believes in this love. And every thing that is put between

us and God, who exercises this love immediately towards

us-every thing which tends to' show
that this love is not.

so free and full, or which militates against that complete

putting away of sin by the blessed Saviour,
which makes..

God's perfect love consistent with His
absolute holiness-all

such inventions 'of men are so far denials of the revelations

of Christianity-of what God really is towards us.
So far

they are infidelity. There £8 one
between us sinners and

God; that is,-Christ. But He is the impersonation
of the

love of God, and he is the Accomplisher of that work, which"

by putting away sin, enables us
to enjoy it. He is also the

Intercessor through whom we obtain daily needed grace to,

do so. It is in Him, who-while He was the lowliest, most

gracious, most accessible man-was
God manifest in the

.

flesh-God blessed for evermore; it is in Him, I say, we

know God.

Let me here repeat, all that obscures God's love, or
de­

rogates from the perfect efficacy of the
work of Christ, is

infidel as to God's full revelation of Himself.

Between the Romanist and the Christian, two questions

are at issue. One is, Are the doctrines which the Romanist

system teaches true? The
other is, What is the authority

in which man can confide, in order to know that he possesses

the truth? As to both these questions, the Romanist system
.

is really infidel. I say, the system,
because I do not deny

that some poor ignorant soul may believe
in spite of the



"TRE INFIDELITY ÒF ROMANISM. 7

system, although his faith be all but overwhelmed by its
errors. A man's constitution may, through mercy, resist

poison, but that does not disprove the poisonous character
of the drug, from whose effect he has escaped with that con­
stitution ruined.

If the Scriptures be taken as having the authority of
God-as being inspired by Him, as every true Christian

acknowledges, the Romanist system of doctrine cannot be
maintained for a moment. But my object now is to notice,
not the errors of the system, but only the infidelity found
therein.

.

I proceed to furnish proofs. The Scriptures teach, that
Christ having by one offering perfected for ever them that
are sanctified, "THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR

SIN" (Heb. x. ]4). The whole Romanistsystem is based
on the doctrine that there IS, in the mass, an offering for
the sins of the living and the dead. The Scriptures teach
us that the only ground on which we can' stand in the pre­
sence of God, is, that the blood of Christ cleanses from

all sin. The Romanist believes that there is a purgatory
"needed to complete this cleansing; unless for some rare
soul in an unusual state of sanctity. Now, these two
Romanist doctrines are really infidel as to what God has

taught for our peace.
.

God has said, that Christ's offering of himself was a
work so perfect and so efficacious, that it· needed not to be

repeated; and, indeed, that it could not be repeated, be­

cause, in order to have efficacy, Christ must-suifer. He has
declared that "without shedding of blood there is no re­

mission;" and hence, if the offering of Christ had to be

repeated, Christ must needs have suffered often; but the

efficacy- of His one offering of Himself, was such that it
needed not to be repeated. Now if I pretend to offer this
sacrifice again, and declare that such offering is necessary,
I deny-that is, I am infidel or unbelieving as to-the

efficacy of the one offering accomplished by Christ on
the cross "once for all." And this is the more clear

and decisive; because the Apostle, in the passage of the

Epistle to the Hebrews to which I refer, is contrasting
the repetition of the Jewish sacrifices, because of their.

inefficacy to make the conscience perfect, with Christ

being offered once-and" once for all," because His sacri­
fice made perfect for ever those that were sanctified. See
Reb. x. 11-18.



8 THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM.

And further, in accepting the Romanist doctrine as to
the sacrifice of the mass, I am infidel as regards the au­

thority of God's word, which declares that "there is no
more offering for sin." For the Romanist pretends that
there is still an offering for sin. He pretends that there is
one in the sacrifice of the mass. That is, he is an infidel as
to that which is the foundation of Christianity, namely, the

offering of Christ on the cross. I am well aware that he
teaches that the mass is " an unbloody sacrifice." But this
excuse is of no avail, for the declaration of Scripture is,
that "there is no more offering for sin." But it is not

only of no avail-it makes the matter worse; for the
Romanist doctrine declares that this unbloody sacrifice is
efficacious for the remission of sins-an d the Scripture
declares that "without shedding of blood there is no re­
mission" (Heb. ix. 22); so that the Romanist doctrine

expressly contradicts Scripture. And again, let us observe,
that this doctrine of "an unbloody sacrifice" is infidel as to
the nature of sin. God declares the nature of sin to be

such, that nothing less than the sufferings of Christ could

expiate it; they pretend, on the contrary, that an un­

bloody sacrifice, in which Christ does not suffer, can put it

away.

Again, the word of God teaches that "THE BLOOD
OF JESUS CHRIST HIS SON CLEANSETH US FROM

ALL SIN." Blessed truth! It is just what our con­
science needs, in order to have boldness to appear before

God, and to enter into His presence, as knowing Him to
be a gracious and loving Father. Now, the doctrine of

purgatory teaches that the blood of Jesus does not thus

purge me; but that, in order to be purged, I must go and
suffer in some fire, of which they themselves can give very
little account, before I can appear in God's presence: and
observe here, this purging fire is for the "faithful "-for those
who have profited by all that which the" Church," as they
term it, has at its disposal for the good of souls.

"

A good
Catholic," as he is called, who has confessed to a priest,
received absolution, and the viaticum, and extreme unction
-who has had everything possible done for him by what

they declare to be the" Church," goes, after all, to purga­
tory. He must have masses said for the repose of his soul,
though the" Church" has done its best for him while living.
This is the more strange, because their authentic doctrine
declares that extreme unction wipes away the remains of



THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM. 9

sin; "abstergit peccati 'reliquias." It is strange that after
absolution, and the viaticum, and extreme unction, each of
which is alleged to be efficacious to clear a man from sin,
he should go into the torment of purgatory after all! Is
this all the efficacy which belongs to the "Church's" acts­
that after she has done all she can for the cleansing of
souls, she must still allow them to go into a place of fire,
whose efficacy does not flow from her at all ? And re­
mark here, that she then offers the mass to get the soul
out of purgatory, although God, as they say, has cast it in,
and although she was not able to keep it from such a
doom by all she did:for it when in the body. Are these the
Lord's ways, or like the Lord's power? But this only in

passing.
But why all these efforts and shifts to relieve and quiet

the uneasy soul? Why this doctrine of purgatorial fire to
cleanse and fit the soul for God's presence? Because the

great and precious truth, that the blood of Jesus Christ
cleanses from all sin, is not believed. If it does so cleanse
from sin, why go to purgatory (that is, to a place of cleans­

ing, for such is the meaning of the word) to get it cleansed?
That is, the Romish system is, in like manner, infidelity as
to this great and precious truth of God's word. But it is
infidel in another respect. There is infidelity in it, not

only as to the truth, but also as to the love of God. What
is the text constantly quoted as a ground for purgatory?
_" Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in
the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver
thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer,
and thou be cast into prison; verily I say unto thee, thou
shalt not come out thence till thou hast paid the last far­

thing." But is it thus that God has met us in the Gospel?
That the unrepenting sinner will meet with the wrath

righteously due to his sins, every true Christian owns. But
such a perverted use of this text is really denying the

efficacy of Christ's work, "God so loved the world, that
He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And
that we might be forgiven, Christ died upon the cross.
But this doctrine of purgatory teaches that we must pay to
the very last farthing-that God will exact it of us. 'This
is infidelity as to that grace which has given Jesus to bear
our sins in His own body on the tree; so that every



10 THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM.

repentant sinner should know that God has so loved him;
that He spared not His own Son, but gave Him as a pro

...

pitiation for his sins-and that Christ has, by the sacrifice
of Himself, put away the sin that justly alarmed his con­

science; or, as the Scripture expresses it, "He has by
HIMSELF purged our sins" (Heb. i. 3). This doctrine of

purgatory is really infidelity as to the efficacy of Christ's

blood; for, if His blood has cleansed the true· Christian

from all sin, he does not want a purgatory to effect his

cleansing. It is infidelity, also, as to the authority of God's

word, which declares that His blood does cleanse us from

all sin,-that Christ, when He had by Himself purged our

sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high>
the work of atonement being for ever complete.

Again,-the doctrine of the rnediation of the Virgin

Mary, and of the saints, is also really infidelity. The Word

of God declares" THERE IS ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD

AND MEN-THE MAN CHRIST JESUS"; and what

does it teach us as to Christ's intercession? It teaches us

that that divine and gracious Person, the Son-who is one

with the Father-s-who is God over all, blessed for ever­

more-came down so low and in such grace, that the

·poorest and vilest. sinner, whose heart grace drew to Him;

found free access to Him,-was never cast out. Though
it were" a woman in the city that was a sinner," if she

knew that Jesus was in the house (Luke vii. 37), she was

welcome to go in, and count upon that tender goodness
which inspired confidence in the heart, while it deeply
awakened the conscience, and gave a horror of sin. That

is, we are taught that there was such grace-such tender­

ness in Jesus-in that Holy One, who had become in all

things "like unto His brethren, that He might be a mer­

ciful and faithful High Priest," that He condescended to all

our infirmities, and sympathised with all our sorrows, en­

tering into them as none other could, and with a heart,
such as none other had. We are taught that" He suf­

fered, being tempted, that He might be able to succour

them that are tempted"; that He was tempted in all

things like unto us, yet without sin; so that we have a

merciful and faithful High Priest, who can be touched with

the feeling of our infirmities; and hence we are exhorted

to "come boldly unto the throne of grace," knowing that He

ever liveth to make intercession for us. This is what my



-heart learns of the blessed Jesus in the Scriptures, that
He who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,
now lives to make intercession for us.

But what does the Rornanist doctrine teach me? It

tells me that J cannot thus go to Him; that I cannot count

upon His tenderness; that He is too high-too far off;
that Mary has a tenderer heart as being a woman; and
that I must go to Him, through her, as I should in the
case of some king or great man, who would be too much
above me to allow me to approach him; or tbat I must go
to the saints. Have they, then, tenderer hearts, and more

condescending grace, than H e who came to this earth on

,purpose to assure us of His love? Did Mary, however'

blessed, come down from heaven to seek me in my sorrow

and in my misery?' or is Christ changed, and become hard­

'hearted, since He ascended up on high? No; but the
doctrine of the Virgin Mary, and of many mediators. as
those through whom I am to approach Jesus, is infidelity
.as to the grace of Christ. It denies His glory as a com­

passionate High Priest. He came down and suffered in
this world, that we might know we could go to God by
Him: inasmuch as He Himself could sympathize with us
in all our infirmities, and would be touched with the feeling
of them. The Romanist doctrine tells me, I cannot dare

to do it,-that I must get tenderer hearts to go to Him for

me. Ah! I prefer His own. I have seen and learnt what
it was when He was on earth, and I can count upon it,

more ·than on any, be they whose they may. It is the

only heart that has shed its life-blood for me !' I trust its

kindness, more than that of all the Marys, and of all the
saints that ever were, blessed as they may be in their place.
In this respect, again, the Romanist system, while seeming
only to add to the word of God, is really infidelity as to

�
. one of its most precious doctrines.

I refer to these lies of Romanism as examples of the

way in which, while seeming only to' add various doctrines

on the authority of what is called the "Church," it really
undermines the truth, and takes away all its value, and

thus becomes essentially and practically infidelity as to the
. most precious truths of the Gospel. It calls upon you to

believe things not in Scripture; but in doing so, it makes

you disbelieve the truth of God therein revealed. And

. here note-It is not open infidelity as to the historical facts

.THE INFIDELITY OF ROMAN-ISM. Il



12 THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM.

of Christianity, nor as to the great truths on which Chris ..
tianity is founded.

There are two t.hings with which faith is concerned, in
order to the peace of a soul.

First,-The great doctrinal facts revealed; and

Secondly,-The value of these facts for the soul, and
the application of this value to it.

If these last be taken away, the soul has no more benefit
from them than if they were not true.

If the riches of the world were heaped up before me,
and I could not have them, there might as well be none,
as far as I am concerned.

Now Romanism does not deny the facts of Christianity,
but their availableness for my peace; it does not deny the

Trinity-it does not deny the incarnation-nor the deity of
Christ-nor the expiation for sin made on the cross: these
truths it professes to hold, so that, at first sight, it would
not be suspected of infidelity. It is in the denial of their
actual value for the sinner, and of their application to him,
that it has destroyed the truth, and robbed the soul of the
way of peace.

God says, that by one offering, Christ has perfected for
ever them that are sanctified (Heb. x. 14.)

Romanism says, He is to be offered often, and that the
believer is not perfected by that one offering of Christ on
the cross. It denies, not the offering, but its value and

sufficiency for the believer's peace.
God says, that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all

sin; that He has by Himself purged our sins ( l John i. 7;
Heb. i. 3).

Romanism says, He has not; that people have to be
cleansed or purged in purgatory.

God says, that Christ is a merciful High Priest, who
can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb.
iv. 15).

Romanism says, that we shall find more suitable persons
to go to, more accessible, more tender-hearted, in the Saints
and the Virgin Mary.

It denies not the fact of Christ's priesthood, but its real
value for me. In vain, then, is it orthodox as to the facts
of Christianity. I t makes them useless to the soul, and
substitutes others in their place.

These are examples of the real infidelity of Romanism as



THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM. 13

to those truths of the gospel, which are most precious for

the peace of the BOUI.

But as regards the second point to which I referred in

commencing, that is, the authority on
which our souls can

rest in order to be assured that we possess the truth, the

infidelity is still more glaring. I have supposed in the pre­

ceding pages, that the authority of the inspired
word of God

is admitted, as every true believer does admit it.

But the Romanist will not consent to this.

Now mark well. Nat to consent to it, is infidelity.
He who does not admit the authority of God's inspired

word is an infidel.

It will be said: "Many souls have been saved without

knowing of the existence of the Bible." I admit it. If the

truth has been preached to them, or brought to their know­

ledge in any other way, the Spirit of God may have brought
it savingly home to their souls. In the first ages, thousands

were brought to salvation by the preaching of the Apostles
and of others, before the New Testament existed. So, since

it has been written, many have been converted before they
knew of its existence, as in the case of heathens, into whose

language it was not yet translated. But that is not our case.

We do know that the Bible exists, and therefore to deny,
or question its authority, is infidelity as to it. Now this is

the ground the Romanist always takes. He tells me, I

cannot know that it is the word of God, without the author­

ity of the" Church." Observe that. If God
has written a

book, and addressed it to men in general, or to those called

Christians, His doing so puts them under the responsibility
of receiving what He has so addressed. What God has so

addressed to them is obligatory upon their conscience. If

not, He has failed in the object He proposed. He was un­

able to put those whom He addressed under the responsi­

bility of receiving what He had said, if,
as the Romanist

says, the ordinary Christian cannot
know that it is the word

of God, and cannot receive it as such. Of two things one

is true. Either he who says so, denies it
to be the revealed

word of God, or he asserts that God's word is not by itself

binding on those to whom it is sent; and therefore
that

God has failed in so writing it as to render it obligatory on
.

the conscience of the reader to receive it as such. Now

either of these positions is infidelity. It is, moreover, the

common ground taken by infidels,-and the latter is really

infidelity of a blasphemous kind. Yet it is the ground always
\



THE, INFIDELITY OF ROMANISl\:I.

taken by the Romanist. If the authority of the
"

Church" is

requisitein order to a man's believing the Scripture and re ..

ceiving it as God's word, then God has not spoken so as to
bind the conscience and to make faith obligatory, without
some one adding his sanction to God's authority. What
kind of Church that can be, which pretends to give to God's
word an authority over the conscience which that word has
not by itself, although God spoke it, I leave as a matter
for consideration to those who reverence God. Such a

Church assumes an authority above that of God Himself,
for it says" Such a book is God's word, and you must re­

ceive it as such; and yet, although it is God's word, it can'
have no authority over your conscience until we sanction
it.

"

The case with Romanists stands thus. The Church-­

that is, certain men tell me certain things, and I am bound
to believe them. The Apostles also and other writers of
the New Testament tell me certain things as. inspired of

God, and I cannot tell whether I am to believe them or not.

These latter, then-the penmen of the scriptures-have not
the same claim over my conscience and faith as the former.

It is in vain to tell me the former compose the Church, and

that it has God's authority. Had not the inspired Apostles
God's authority? Did not what they say bind the con­
science of the Church itself? It is not a question of inter­

pretation. The question is, Has what the Apostles say au­

thority over my conscience, so that I am bound to receive
it as God's word? St. Paul writes an Epistle to the

Christians-say at Corinth-Were they bound to receive
it as God's word? If so, am I? If I am not, they were
not: and note, they were the Church; that is, the Church
is not to sit in judgment on the inspired word of the Apos­
tle, but to receive it. Woe be to them if they did not ..
Woe be to me if I do not. And, let me add, woe be to

those who will not.

This, then, is the simple and essential principle of faith.
If God gives a testimony of Himself, man. is bound to
believe it. If he does not believe it, he is guilty of de­

spising the testimony of God; and the day of judgment will

surely show, that it is not God who has failed in giving the

testimony, so as to bind the conscience and oblige to faith;
but that man's sinful heart has deceived him.

Look at the creation. There is a testimony which God has'

given of Himself" Man is guilty, if he does not see 90d in



THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM. ]5

'it. There are many difficult things which he
cannot ex­

'plain; but the testimony of the
creation is sufficient to

-condemn those who do not believe in God the Creator.

When the blessed Lord appeared, many cavils were

raised by infidel hearts; but
he could say "If ye believe

not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins."

So St. John-as to the testimony of the Gospel in ge­
neral-" He that believeth not God, hath made Him a liar;

because he believeth not the testimony that God gave con­

.cerning His Son": such a one is guilty,-guilty
of infi­

delity. So in the inspired volume-the written
word­

God has given a testimony, and man is bound to believe

it. Doubts and cavils and difficulties may be raised by in ...

fidel minds; but God's testimony of Himself is in every case

adequate to bincl the conscience of man, and to bring him

ip guilty if he reject it.

Now, what does the Romanist say? He says: "You

cannot believe in the Scriptures, without the authority of

the Church to accredit them;" that is, God's testimony
does not bind the conscience-does not oblige to faith,

without something else to accredit it. Now this is infidel­

ity, and a horrible dishonour done to God.
It is declaring

that God's testimony is not sufficient, -is not competent in

itself to bind man-to oblige man to believe and bow to it.

According to this doctrine, God has given that which is

inefficient as a testimony; so that if I do not bow to it, that is,

if I remain an infidel, I am justified in so remaining. This

is high treason against God and His truth. Romanists dare

not say, "It is not
God's word," for then they would be

avowed infidels themselves. They may make profession
of Christianity, but their principles are infidel before God.

Their cleverness in puzzling the mind as to the authority of

the word,-their demanding proofs-their showing how

impossible it is for men to know it is God's word-(though
the object be to throw them into the arms of what they call

the Church)-is merely infidel reasoning, and reasoning
which is employed by infidels. They will tell you that

"laws require ajudge"; but laws bind everyone, whether he

be a judge or not; and further, we are not to judge God's

word. It will judge us.
" The words that I have spoken

unto you,
"

says the Lord, "the same shall iudge you in

that day."
The word of God is a testimony to man's conscience,

which bears God's authority with it.



16 THE INFIDELITY OF ROMANISM.

If a man do not bow to it when sent in grace as a testi­

mony to salvation, he will be obliged to bow to it, when
executed in judgment.

And mark further. If I do not believe what God says
without the authority of the" Church," I do not believe God
at all. It is not faith in God. For when I had only
what God said, I did not believe it: when the Church
tells me to believe it, I do. This is faith in the Church:
but it is unbelief as to God, for I decline believing His
word, unless I have something else to accredit it.

Now the only true faith is believing God-believing
God Himself. This is the real return of the soul to God.

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for

righteousness;" he had no Church to accredit what God
had said. He believed what was said, because God Him­
self had said it. It was believing Goel. He who does not
believe him, let me repeat it, until the Church adds its

authority, does not believe God at all.

Believing on God's authority, and on it alone, is believing
God-nothing else is. True faith, is faith in what God
has said, because God has said it. If you require the
Church's sanction of it, you have not faith in God. You
do not bow to His word, and that is infidelity.

That is, Romanism is infidelity as to the most precious
and fundamental truths of Christianity; and it is infidelity
as to the authority of God's own Word itself.

G. LITTLEWOOD, PRINTER, 93, LONDON WALL.