“There Are Only Two Religions in the World”
CHAPTER IV. YG HAT is that great sentence uttered by the young man,
Olivetan, near the close of our last chapter? ‘6 ‘(THERE ARF ONLY TWO RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD,” B88 he says. ‘In the one class invented by men, man sabes himself (or supposes he can) by ceremonies and good works; the other is that one religion which is revealed in
* Men had been so long accustomed to the doctrine of human merit that the doctrines of the Bible were counted new.
HIS LIFE AND TIMES.; 17
the Bible, and which teaches men to look for salvation arising solely from the free grace of God.”
Many and various shades of doctrine have appeared since Calvia and Olivetan discussed the points of difference between human merit and God’s sovereign favour, and many schools of thought, of course, existed long before their day, but stripped of their respective set forms and phrases, the great fact remains that there are only two religions in the’ world,
These two great princip'es have run side by side from the beginning of the world. Cain and Abel, when they appeared before God with their sacrifices, were the first representatives of them. Abel was a man of faith;. by ath he offered his more excellent sacrifice. He therefore represented salvation by grace, and God had respect unto him, and from God he obtained witness that he was righteous.
Cain was not a man of faith. He did not believe in the favour of God. He represented all such as trust to their ceremonies and good works. He was wroth with his brother; he counted him a heretic, and slew him. Abel was, therefore, the first martyr for the Word of God and the testimony which he held. From the death of Abel we pass over about 5406 years, and two other representatives of these two religions appear before us. Calvin and Olivetan - are thoughtfully and prayerfully attending to the Divine admonition, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.””
HUMAN AUTHORITY OR DIVINE REVELATION?
Olivetan, like a wise builder, digs deep. He sees the sandy foundation upon which his cousin is building. He points to the sacred page, and says, ‘It is written.”
Calvin, mistaking compulsory uniformity in the Church of Rome, for the unity of the Spirit in the true Church of God, points to the greatness, universality, and authority of the Church. He has been trained within her pale, he loves her, he adores all that belongs to her. He has never ventured to question authority so universally received and admired as the Church. All the great doctors of the universities support her. For Calvin even to admit that there is any force in his cousin’s reasonings is to admit that the Church with her millions of followers has for hundreds of years been in delusion, and what to him is perhaps even more solemn, is to admit that the foundation upon which his. soul is resting for eternal salvation may after all be. a sandy one.
DEAD WORKS.
But we must not rest satisfied with simply tracing the outlines of the life of this remarkable Reformer. To understand ‘his conversion we must look into his very soul, and inquire into the nature of his confidence in Romish ceremonials.
There he stands before his cousin, employing all the powers of his capacious mind to defend the unscriptural. doctrine of salvation by works. The Bible, it should be remembered, although admitted as an important authority by Papists, is never put forward, and is allowed only to be believed according to the interpretation of the Church.
Calvin is therefore at this time, although well acquainted with the great authors, quite ignorant of the truths of the Word of God.
Among the numerous ceremonies upon which his hope rests may be named Jnvocation of Saints, Prayers for the Dead, Worship of the Cross, Images and Relics, Sacrifice of the Mass, and Confession.
The last of these carefully examined from a Romish, point of view will show us how easily even an intelligent person, trained in the Church of Rome, may place _ confidence therein.
CONFESSION
Was first formally adopted and enforced by the Papacy in the year 1215.. And although the Council of Trent did not commence until 1545, when John Calvin was about thirtysix years of age, its Catechism will, nevertheless, most clearly show us what he did believe, and what Roman Catholics still believe in regard to auricular confession,—that is, confession by whispering into the ear of a priest all the sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, the penitent has heen guilty of.
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent,* p. 278, we read—
“Confession, then, is defined to be a sacramental accusation of one’s self made with a view of obtaining pardon by virtue of the keys.
* Theodore Alois Buckley’s Translation.
‘““We know from experience, that to those who have led an immoral life nothing is so useful towards reformation of morals as sometimes to disclose their secret thoughts, their whole words and deeds to a prudent and faithful friend. .... to lay open the diseases and wounds of their souls to the priest as the vice-gerent of Christ the Lord.
“Take away sacramental confession from Christian discipline, and it is evident that all things will be replete with secret and unutterable crimes.
“When any one has arrived at an age to consider the work of salvation, he is then bound ‘o confess his sins to the priest, without which act no one who is weighed down with the consciousness of guilt can hope for salvation.;
‘All sins should individually be detailed in confession (283).
‘‘ The circumstances of sins are to be mentioned in confession 284). ‘But above all, the faithful should be careful to cleanse their consciences from sin by frequent confession (286).
“Of this ministry an illustrious testimony is furnished in the words of our Lord, in St. John: Whose sins ye shall remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose ye shall retain, they are retained; words evidently addressed not to all, but to the Apostles only, to whom, in this function, priests succeed ” (287).
After what we have thus heard the Church of Rome witness about confession, we may safely conclude that we have the mind of young Calvin open before us, and that he sincerely believed that to be saved he must—
1st. Accuse himself before a priest with the view of obtaining pardon.
2nd. That nothing was so useful towards a reformation of morals as to lay open the diseases and wounds of his soul before a fellow creature.
3rd. That the priest in the confessional was vicegerent of Christ the Lord.
4th. That without it the church would abound with unutterable crimes.
5th. That without confessing his sins he could have no hope of salvation.
6th. That all sins were to be individually detailed.
7th. That by frequent confession he was to cleanse his conscience.
8th. That the words spoken to the Apostles, namely, ‘“« Whose sins ye shall remit,” etc., were spoken to the priests who possessed power, when the sins were confessed, to grant complete absolution.
This-must be taken as a sample of the numerous ceremonies which formed the false hope of the future Reformer of these subtle pretentions.
THE CONFESSIONAL HAS NO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY AND WAS UNKNOWN TO THE EARLY FATHERS.
“Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path,” said the Psalmist (Ps. cxix. 105), and the prophet Isaiah added, ‘‘If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. viii. 20), Let us then examine the foregoing by the light of truth.
It is easy to perceive that the whole fabric of confessional, priest and absolution, rests upon the right of the priest to assume such a position. If he has no Scriptural authority, either for the title of priest, or for the office of mediator, then, being without Divine right, the whole institution must be an imposture, and the so-called priest, even though sincere; a deceiver of deceivers.
Now, strange as it may appear to those who have learned to kneel reverently at the feet of a fellow mortal and hear him say, ‘‘ God hears you, hears you through me: through me, God will answer you,” there is not the slightest foundation in the Word of God for any mortal man to assume such a position.
The term ‘ priest” is indeed found and applied to ai? believers in 1 Peter ii. 9 and Revelation i. 6; but the title in these cases is entirely repugnant to the idea of a consecrated priesthood vested with sacerdotal functions.
Under the Gospel no such thing is known, and no such thing was heard of for centuries after apostolic times. Even Ambrose, the Latin father, born about the year 340, to whom the Te Deum is ascribed, says, “ Ali the children of the Church are priests. The heathen,” he says, ‘‘ accuse us, because we have neither temples, altars nor victims.”
And Tertullian, another father of the Church, born about the year 160, who became a Christian from witnessing the heroic firmness of the martyrs, says, ‘‘ We are the true worshippers and the true priests, who, by praying in the spirit, sacrifice personal and acceptable prayer to God, which is addressed to Himself.”
The idea of a human being as a priest-mediator was unknown until the Church declined from the simplicity and purity of her first principles. None of the Apostles ever claimed such a title, and among the gifts granted by Jesus for the perfecting of the saints are found apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, but no priests, no mediators.
Paul, it is true, entreats the members of the Church to pray for him, but never to come between his soul and God.