PROVED BY BUTLER'S CATECHISM.
By A. S. Hutchins
Not long since, during an interview with a Papist, he made a statement of what he regarded as being the true definition of the word, soul, and of what he believed would be its condition after death, and after the judgment. These views did not differ materially from the popular theology of the day. In vindication of which, he added, "And if you have read Butler's Catechism, you have found it there." I remarked that the Bible did not endorse such sentiments. "I know that" said he, "neither can you prove the Trinity from the Bible." Here then, thus far, we have an acknowledgment or confession of the faith of the Romish Church, for which its advocate laid no claim to any scriptural proof. Neither do Romanists regard the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith. But contrariwise: "The Bible does not contain all things necessary to salvation, and, consequently, can not be a sufficient rule of faith." Snre Way. The following we take from Butler's Catechism. "Ques. Where shall we find the truths God has taught?
"Ans. They are chiefly contained in the Apostles' creed.
"Q. What do you mean when you say, the soul is immortal?
"A. I mean that it can never die." (The soul that sinneth it shall die. Ezek. xviii, 4.) Page 4.
"Q. Say the third commandment?
"A. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
"Q. What is commanded by the third commandment?
"A. To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious duties." Page 26.
"Q. Are there any other commandments, besides the ten commandments of God?
"A. There are the commandments, or precepts of the church, which are chiefly six." Page 31, 32. The first of these commandments enjoins the duty upon Romanists, of hearing Mass on Sundays." To the above we might add that the second commandment of the decalogue is not to be found in the Catechism of the Papists. And also that the tenth commandment is divided into two. With the above facts before us, we see that the man of sin has thought "to change times and laws." And in addition to this, a commandment is given by the church, if possible, more fully to guard Sunday-keeping. In this latter point the Protestant churches differ but little—at the present day, from the Romish church: Sabbath-keepers having been excommunicated from these bodies, for breaking the church covenant, by keeping the Sabbath of the Lord God, instead of keeping Sunday.5 We further learn, that Romanists have a "thus saith the Pope, or the priest, or traditions," to offer, and urge in defence of their religious faith; while the child of God, in vindication of his faith in Christ, and of his hope of future bliss and glory, has a "thus saith the Lord." "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." The Christian being thus "thoroughly furnished unto all good works," with "weapons, [not carnal] but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds," should be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of his hope with meekness and fear. "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." But is it the prevailing practice of the teachers of the different religious bodies, and of their followers at the present day, to hold up to the world, as the man of their counsel, and the rule of their action, the Word of God, blazing with sacred truth? Do they consult this blessed word first and last and mainly, and earnestly and prayerfully seek for the saving truths therein contained, as one seeking and searching for hidden treasures? We think facts in the case, show the reverse to be true respecting many "strange and divers doctrines," promulgated in these days of peril. We would be saved from all hasty and uncharitable conclusions; but, it is greatly to be feared that catechisms, creeds and the inferences of Doctors of Divinity, are held in such an estimate by many of the professedly pious, that the plain, simple teachings of the sacred scriptures are overlooked, and the commandment of God made void through tradition. This most certainly is true in regard to the Sabbath; in proof of which, we have only to become acquainted with the various and conflicting opinions of those who have arrayed themselves against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Nothing can be more clearly expressed than, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" yet how dreadfully this text is mangled and wrested by many to favor the first-day theory. Some months since, a minister was requested by some of his hearers, to preach on the subject of the Sabbath, and present the claims for Sunday-keeping. He remarked that he had written a sermon with that object in view, and should deliver it soon. "But," said he, "it is a mixed up mess! There is hardly enough to make a sermon out of it. All you can make of it is one seventh part of time." The question was then asked, Does the fourth commandment of the decalogue teach that one seventh part of time is the Sabbath, without specifying any particular day? or does it teach that the seventh-day is the Sabbath? In reply he affirmed that it was one seventh part of time without reference to any definite day. Every candid and honest reader must see at once that the above method of interpretation would rob the Word of God of all definiteness, and leave us to the conjecture and speculation of every opposer of the truth. In view of this attempt and indeed every other, to sustain the first-day theory, we ask how much nearer the Bible truth has the Protestant arrived on this point, than the Papist who proves his religious faith by Butler's Catechism?
A. S. HUTCHINS.
Buck's Bridge, N. Y. Aug. 1st 1864.