The Christ of the Bible and the Christ of Romanism

“Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.’ — John 5: 39. eels “There shall arise false Christs.” — Matt. 24: 24.

In the New Testament church Christ is the head, and his people, without regard to official position, are the members, Their place is determined, not by their office, but by their faithfulness, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” 1 Cor. 12: 27. The Papacy of to-day is the monstrosity which Paul pictures to the imagination of the Corinthians, when he said: “The body is not one member, but many. If the whole were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?... And if they were all one member, where were the body?”” 1 Cor. 12: 14-20. The Pope, one member, has become the whole body, head and all. No Roman Catholic in religious matters can see, hear or smell for himself. The Pope is his eyes, ears and nose. Now God himself did not try to make one organ serve these three purposes, because he has, as we see in nature, no taste for monstrosities. They are made by the violation of his laws, and on no other ground can we account for the existence in the world to-day of this monstrous thing, a body with only one member.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ,” said Paul, “of whom the whole family in heaven and earth are named.” (Eph. 8:15.) That’s it. To God’s church, militant and triumphant, we bear the relation of children to a family. We area part of it. Not so the Roman Catholic people. To the Papacy they bear the relation of slave to master. What the Pope says they must do, not because they bear a tender, loving, filial relation to him, but because he has all authority, and they have no right to think for themselves. Of the church said to have been founded by Peter, the Pope is the tall spire, his cardinals the little turrets standing about him, his bishops are the arches and domes, while his priests are the stones which hold the structure together. The people pay for its erection, keep it in repairs, and bear its running expenses.

What we have to say against the Papacy, therefore, in these sermons does not refer to the Roman Catholic people, only in so far as they are morally responsible for the support they give such an institution. The crimes of the Papacy are not theirs, except as they choose to claim them by their allegiance. In Italy the intelligent people, not connected with it by blood or interest, hate the Papacy. When in 1870 it was submitted to the popular vote in Rome as to whether or not the Pope should be their ruler, the old man received 46 votes to 40,805 against him, and the lapse of years has not increased his popularity a whit among the Italians. And if the people in these United States could only be allowed to think and speak for themselves, they would declare independence of the Vatican and allow only Americans, native born or adopted, to rule their church in America. If next month it should be submitted to the vote of American Roman Catholics as’ to whether Leo XIII. on the Tiber, or James Gibbons in Baltimore should rule the church in America, does any one doubt the result? In the name of these millions of Catholic citizens who do not believe in being ruled by a foreign autocrat, I nominate Cardinal Gibbons as the first American Pope.

We now ask you to view with us to-day the Christ of the Bible in contrast with the Christ of the Papacy. Christ, as portrayed in the Scriptures, is the true Christ. “Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me.” We find in this Book the only perfect picture of Jesus. I believe that the Christ of the Papacy is a false Christ, and before allowing yourself to be unduly shocked by that utterance, I beg you to hear the proof. Many Roman Cath. olics, I hope, worship the true Christ, but if they do, it is because they have turned from the Christ of Popery to the Christ of the Bible. We pray God that all may.

1. The Christ of the Bible is perfect; the Christ of the Papacy is imperfect. Peter says of his Lord that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2: 21. Again in Heb. 7: 36, “And such an high priest became us who was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” John says, “In him was no sin,’’ and earth, hell and heaven have echoed the same testimony. Even the devils called him the “Holy One of Israel.” His enemies among whom he lived could find no flaw in his character, and the microscopic scrutiny of the ages has not assisted them a particle. To Pilate’s question, “‘ What evil hath he done?”’ the answer has uniformly been “None.” No sin, no blemish. “The Lamb without spot.” He who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity looked upon him and said, ‘I am well pleased.” In Him is the absence of all that is bad, and the presence of all that is good, “He is altogether lovely.”

Let us now turn to the Christ of the Papacy, as represented by the line of Popes. Though the Pope claims that he is the successor of Peter, he does not represent Peter on earth, but Christ. His voice, when he speaks, is not the voice of Peter, but of Christ. So that the official acts and sayings of every Pope, from the first one to Leo XIII., according to the Papacy of to-day, are the acts and saying of Christ. When the dissenting Cardinals and bishops in 1870 came before Pius IX. with their protest against the dogma of infallibility, they were coolly informed by his “holiness” that it was no new doctrine, but that the church had always believed and taught it.” The Roman Catholic is, therefore, compelled to believe that the official utterances of every Pope in the whole Papal line is the very voice of Christ, and Christ is of course responsible for it. The dogma of Papal infallibility makes the official history of the Popes a continuation of the life of Christ. The Christ of the Papacy, then, is just what the official lives of the Popes present to the world. We will examine a short chapter in this history, that we may see the kind of Christ Popery calls on us to respect and adore.

Silverius and Vigilius, who were Popes in 586 and 587, both bought their Popedoms, and were elected by order of the military authorities from whom they had made the purchase. This same Vigilius was summoned by Justinian to Constantinople to help him settle a theological dispute. A council was called for the purpose, and Vigilius took oath to further the emperor’s interests, but when he saw that the council was against him, he violated his oath by taking sides against the emperor. Justinian seized him, though he had fled to a church for protection, and kept him a prisoner until he consented to do his will. Here I am called upon to believe that Christ (can I utter the blasphemy?) could vacillate and violate his oath, for, remember, Justinian was dealing with Vigilius as Pope, and not asa mere man. We are told by our Romanist friends, who cannot deny these facts, that the private character of the Pope has nothing to with his infallibility. He, as a man, can err and sin like other men; it is only when he speaks as Pope that his is the voice of God. But that view does not help the case much, for we find that bad men are bad Popes. A bad man in the papal chair does not hesitate to use his official position to further his bad designs.

- Liberius and Felix II., claimed as Popes by our Roman Catholic friends, gave their signatures to the Arian heresy, Felix willingly, Liberius after a series of persecutions by the emperor Constantius. The Arian heresy denied the divinity of Christ. So that I am called upon, if I would be a good Romanist, to believe that Christ willingly and by compulsion denied his own divinity.

Honorius I., who was made Pope in 625, was anathematized for heresy by the General Council of Constantinople in A.D.680. At that time the council was considered the more fallible of the two. But that anathema amounts to nothing, now that Popes are infallible, independently of Councils. But in 682 Pope Leo II. denounced Honorius as a heretic, and we behold the strange spectacle of one infallible Pope cursing another infallible Pope, which, being interpreted in the light of the claim that all Popes represent Christ upon earth, means that Christ in 682 denounced himself as he was in 625. He who is “the same yesterday, to-day and forever,” has completely changed in fifty-seven years. Ishrink from the bare mention of such blasphemy.

When Stephen VII. came to the papal throne in 897, he had the body of Pope Formosus, one of his predecessors taken from its grave.

This lifeless corpse was brought into the presence of the council of Italian bishops, arrayed in the insignia of office it used to wear, and placed on the papal throne. Then Stephen stood before it and uttered these words: ‘‘ Wherefore, O Bishop of Porto, hast thou carried thy ambition so far as to usurp the see of Rome?” On receiving no reply the dead Formosus was by vote of the council deposed from his office, his robes,torn from him, his body horribly mutilated and thrown into the Tiber. Then Stephen issued his edict that Formosus was a usurper, and all his acts and decrees formally annulled. The friends of Formosus could not stand these proceedings; they rose in their indignation, broke into the Pope’s palace, hurried him to a dungeon and strangled him without a trial. Baronius, a church historian high in authority among the Romanists, says of Stephen that “he entered like a thief, and died as he deserved, by the rope.” In these transactions Stephen acted as Pope. He spoke ew cathedra, so that I am called on to believe that the meek and gentle Jesus, who loved and died for his enemies, could be guilty of such meaningless brutality. Nay, worse, that the Christ of 897 could treat himself, the Christ of 891, in this barbarous fashion.

We pass over Benedict IX., who was elected Pope in 1033, at the age of twelve years, and so disgraced himself and prostituted his office, that the citizens of Rome met and elected another Pope as a protest against his crimes. We pass also Alexander VI., the infamous Roderic Borgia of the fifteenth century, who, a writer in “Johnson’s Cyclopedia” says “was a compound of cruelty, treachery, licentiousness and other vices.”” Their characters, personal and official, are almost too bad for the public gaze. The predecessor of Alexander, Innocent VIII., deserves a passing notice, for in his bull of excommunication against the Waldenses, whose crime was that they believed and preached justification by faith, he ‘‘ exhorts all bishops together with the princes of France to tread them under foot as venomous adders.” No one will claim that he decreed this as man and not as Pope, for when 4 papal bull bellows, it is accepted by all good Romanists as the very voice of God. Am I to believe that the Christ of Calvary turned those hounds of hell upon his own faithful people? Such, blessed be God, is not the Christ revealed in the Scriptures. The Christ of the Bible is pure, meek, gentle, forgiving, Joving and unselfish. This false Christ is often impure, never meek, frequently cruel, very unforgiving toward his enemies, and always selfish. It is clear as day that this Christ of the Papacy is an anti-Christ. May God turn the faith of all the world from him to the true Christ of the Bible and of history...

II. The Christ of the Bible is a living Christ; the Christ of the Papacy is dead. The death of Christ is one thing; the dead Christ is quite another. By the death of Christ we are reconciled to God; by the dead Christ we get neither hope nor help. “If, while we were enemies,” says Paul, “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be soph by his life.” (Rom: 5: 10.) “Because I live,” said Jesus,

“ve shall live also.” ‘“Wherefore he is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”’

The dying Christ, symbolized in the Lord’s supper, is an object of faith; the living Christ is an object of worship. Nowhere are we taught by precept or example to adore or worship the dead Christ. That effigy made of wax, hanging on a cross, with clotted blood on its forehead, hands, feet and side, is not the Christ who is present with his people to-day and demands their adoration. That’s the Christ, three days dead in the sepulchre, guarded by Roman soldiers. And the Roman Church is the sepulchre in which a dead Christ is buried, and guarded by Pope, cardinals, bishops and priests. Now and then the living Christ appears among them, as in the days of Savonarola in Italy, Huss in Bohemia and Luther in Germany, but his appearance is as frightful to them as was the rising Christ to the Roman soldiers. Fearing and quaking they fled to the secular Pilates and Herods of their day, to get their assistance in putting him to death. Few things so frighten the dignitaries of Rome as the appearance of this living Christ. An immoral priest may confess to his brother priest and be absolved any number of times without losing his position, but let him preach a living Christ, mighty to save, without sacrament or saint, and he is hurled from his priestly office amid the thunders and lightnings of papal anathema.

For Mary and the Apostles to have worshipped the dead body of Christ on or off the cross would have been gross idolatry: That,was not Christ. He had gone with the converted thief to

Paradise. It was but dead matter, his outer human clothing, laid aside for a time. Granted, then, that the devout Romanist does not worship the wax effigy but what it represents, the dead Christ, he is none the less an idolator. Even if, by a stretch of his imagination, he worships the dying rather than the dead Christ, he is worshipping what does not now exist. The dying Christ was; the living Christ is. Hediesnomore. To worship now the dying Christ is to worship an historical fact over eighteen hundred years old. We accept the death of Christ as our full atonement for sin. It is a finished fact, never to be added to nor taken from. We love the living Christ because he died for us, and his death we will not forget in earth or heaven. But the Christ of the cold clammy hand and heart is not the Christ we worship and to whom we come for sympathy and strength. The disciples tenderly buried that body, the women brought their spites to it, but not one of them worshipped it. Before the living feet of Christ Mary fell, but never before the lifeless body. No wonder, therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is spiritually dead. It worships death, and worshippers are always assimilated to the nature of the object they worship. If it had been possible for the disciples to have stolen the body of Christ, as the soldiers falsely reported, and the living Christ could have done without it, it would have served no good purpose. All the worship bestowed upon it had been mere idol worship. And yet the Roman Church has as near as possible done that very thing. The dead or dying Christ is everywhere worshipped, while between the living Christ and the people, even on Easter morning, there are so many saints and priests that he can hardly be seen by the eye of faith. If they will have an effigy of Christ, why do they not represent him as he is, the living one, mediator between God and man? Can it be for the reason that then priests and Mary and all saints, whose business it is to take his place would be thrown out of employment?

The whole system of the Papacy accords with the idea that Christ is dead and cannot take care of his own. He must have a vicegerent on earth to take his place, implying, of course, that he is absent. Mary, Joseph, Patrick and a host of others must look after his interests. The priest must speak the word of pardon. The Christ of the Bible is the shepherd that goes with his flock, feeding and leading. No one shall pluck them out of his hand.

The work of the Church is not that of a May day celebration, on which we meet to strew flowers on the grave of our departed leader, honored but dead. The business of the church is to follow their living leader, knowing that he who said, “Lo I am with you always,”’ goes before us to the hottest of the fray.

“Gird thy sword on, mighty Saviour,
Make the word of truth thy car;
Prosper in thy course triumphant
All success attend thy war;
Gracious Victor,
Bring thy trophies from afar.”

“Majesty combined with meekness,
Righteousness with peace unite -
To insure thy blessed conquests,,
Take possession of the right:
Ride triumphant
Decked in robes of purest white.”

“Blest are they that touch thy sceptre
Blest are all that own thy reign;
Freed from sin the worst of tyrants,
Rescued from its galling chain.
Saints and angels,
All who know thee bless thy reign.”

ITT. The Christ of the Bible is an all-sufficient Saviour and Mediator; the Christ of the Papacy must be supplemented by the merits and mediation of Mary and Saints. The angel said to Mary, ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” He does not help save them; he does it completely. ‘ Behold the Lamb of God,” echoed John the Baptist, “which taketh away the sin of the world.” You who honor Peter so highly, listen to these words of his: ‘‘ Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4: 12). Shall we add the name of Mary or saints, and thus say to Peter and the Holy Spirit that they are mistaken about the name of Christ being the only name? Shall we indeed add our own name and strive by sacraments and penance to add to the merit of this only name? That is just what our Roman Catholic friends are taught to do. May God save them from so fatal an error. Now listen to Peter again: ‘ Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5: 381). And Paul echoes the same blessed truth: “The gift of God is eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ.’”’ ‘If salvation is God’s gift through Christ, no penance or merit of saint is needed to pay him for it.

“Our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity’ (Titus 2:18). Hear that, you who are trying to save yourselves from some of your sins by penance and the merit of Mary. Christ hath redeemed us “from all iniquity.”” ‘‘He who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5: 21). Can you improve upon the righteousness of God? No more can you improve upon the righteousness of Christ, imputed unto us through faith.

To add to the merit of Christ is to subtract. Worse indeed, it is to nullify his merit altogether. ‘Our righteousness is filthy rags.” We cannot wear his spotless robe with these filthy rags. Some harmless, even helpful liquids, when mixed, become deadly poisons. Poison not the merit of Christ with your self-righteousness. Keep your gocd works in their proper relation as the fruits of faith and they are scriptural and wholesome. Add them to the merit of Christ and what would be the elixir of life becomes the hemlock of death. The Lord of the feast furnishes the wedding garment. To press your way in without it, thinking that your own clothes are good enough, or need only a slight addition, is to be cast into outer darkness. Better never be baptized than to do so believing that the act saves or helps to save your soul. Better never fast or pray than to think that by either or by both you can atone for your sins. Better forget that Jesus ever had a mother or that there is a saint in heaven than to trust their merit to supplement the merit of Christ.

But do we fairly represent our Roman Catholic friends, when we intimate that they depend upon the merits of Mary and saints to supplement the merit of Christ? Why, the Pope claims that he holds the keys to a treasury of merit, called works of supererogation, which he can unlock at will and transfer to the account of any one who will pay enough for it. That is,a man may by his good deeds on earth do enough to save himself and have enough over to help out other men.

To say that we need Mary to sympathize with us and hear our prayers because she has a woman’s heart, greatly dishonors him who has in himself all that’s womanly and all that’s manly. To say that Jesus will listen to his mother more readily than he will to a poor penitent sinner contradicts Scripture and does indeed the greatest violence to the character of the Christ given us in the inspired word. “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly,’”’ — stand aside Mary, saints and angels — ‘“let us come boldly unto a throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4: 15-16).

“He ever lives above
For me to intercede,
His all-redeeming love
His precious blood to plead;
His blood atones for all our race
And sprinkles now the throne of grace.”

“My God is reconciled,
His pardoning voice I hear;
He owns me for his child,
I can do longer fear.
With confidence I now draw nigh
And Father, Abba, Father cry.”

From a false Christ and half Christ I turn to him who in the Bible and in all history is pure and gentle and self-sacrificing; to him who died, but now lives and loves, and lightens our burdens; to him who, as Saviour and Mediator, is all-sufficient for earth and heaven. To him be glory now and forever. Amen.