Protestants not Guided by Scripture.
["Doctrinal Catechism"—pp. 101, 174, 351—355.] “Q. HAVE you any other proofs that they are not guided by the Scriptures? A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book. Q. Give some examples of both? A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John;—they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, ‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;’ for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated.” “Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” “Q. Do you observe other necessary truths as taught by the Church, not clearly laid down in Scripture? A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense of private interpretation. Q. What say you of infant baptism? A. One-third part of the whole human race die before they reach their seventh year: it is therefore a matter of the last importance to know whether infants should be baptized; for the Scripture declares that baptism is necessary to salvation; and yet the Scripture does nowhere tell us clearly whether Christ intended infants to be baptized. If it did, why should we have Baptists, who have never been able to see this truth clearly laid down in Scripture? Here, then, we have a truth, upon which the salvation of one-third part of the whole human race depends, which is not to be found in Scripture. Q. When Protestants do profane work upon Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith,—do they find this permission clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume? A. On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for this practice. In profaning Saturday, they violate one of God's commandments, which he has never clearly abrogated,—‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.’ Q. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scripture? A. It certainly is not; and yet all Protestants consider the observance of this particular day as essentially necessary to salvation. To say, we observe the Sunday, because Christ rose from the dead on that day, is to say we act without warrant of Scripture; and we might as well say, that we should rest on Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven on that day, and rested in reality from the work of redemption. Q. Is it not said, in the Book of Revelation, that St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, that is, Sunday; and is not this Scriptural proof that Sunday is the day to be observed in the new law? A. Are we then to observe this particular day,14merely because St. John had a revelation upon it,—must we observe, as a day of rest and holiness, any day upon which an apostle was in the Spirit? Q. But it is called the Lord's day. A. . . . Does this text tell you not to work upon that day,—does it tell you that the obligation of keeping Saturday is done away with, or that it was not the day of the resurrection or ascension which St. John here calls the Lord's day? Q. Is it not said in the Acts,—‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and is not this sufficient Scriptural authority for the observance of the first day of the week? A. But does this text abrogate the observance of Saturday the seventh day, or allow Protestants to do profane work on that day? Certainly not. They should then rest upon both days, if they hold the above text as any argument. The text in question does not say that the Apostle preached, or that the people assembled every first day of the week, but merely on this particular day, for which a good reason is given, namely, that St. Paul was to depart next day. It is quite clear, however, that they met every Saturday; for the same Acts say, St. Paul preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. Besides, it is not wonderful that the disciples came together on this first day of the week, since according to Acts ii, they continued DAILY in the temple breaking bread. Q. Does not St. Paul order the Galatians and Corinthians to make collections on the first day of the week? A. Yes; but, again, this does not abolish the observance of Saturday. St. Paul does not say that the people would be at church on that day,—that they were to keep that day, to the exclusion of Saturday, holy,—or that these collections were to be made at church, but merely that every man should lay up by himself in store upon that day. Q. What do you conclude from all this? A. That Protestants have no Scripture for the measure of their day of rest,—that they abolish the observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture,—that they substitute Sunday in its place without Scriptural authority,—consequently, that for all this, they have only traditional authority. Yet Protestants would look upon a man who would . . . keep the Saturday and profane the first day, as a victim of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly does not contain all necessary truths, and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of faith. Q. Does it not appear from all this, that Protestants teach, in many things, what is opposed to Scripture, and that the Catholic doctrines are much more Scriptural? A. This is very evident from all we have said, and must be considered indisputable.”