Arguments against the Doctrine.
1. The first, most obvious, and, for Protestants, the most de- cisive argument against the doctrine is, that it is not 'taught in the Bible. This is virtually admitted by its advocates. The most that is pretended is, that having adopted the doctrine on other grounds, they can find in Scripture here and there a pas- sage which can be explained in accordance with its teachings. There is no passage which asserts it. There is no evidence that it formed a part of the instructions of Christ or his Apostles.
2. It is not only destitute of all support from Scripture, but it is opposed to its clearest and most important revelations. If there be anything plainly taught in the Bible, it is that if any man for- sakes his sins, believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, trusts simply and entirely to Him and his work, and leads a holy life, he shall certainly be saved. This the doc- trine of purgatory denies. It rests avowedly on the assumption that notwithstanding the infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Christ, the sinner is bound to make satisfaction for his own sins. This the Bible declares to be impossible. No man does or can per- fectly keep the commandments of God, much less can he not only abstain from incurring new guilt, but also make atonement for sins that are past.
The doctrine moreover assumes the merit of good works. Here again it is clearer than the sun that the New Testament teaches that we are saved by grace and not by works ; that to him that worketh, the reward is a matter of debt ; but to him who simply believes, it is a matter of grace ; and that the two are incompati- ible. What is of grace is not of works ; and what is of works is not of grace. There is nothing more absolutely incompatible with the nature of the Gospel than the idea that man can " sat- isfy divine justice " for his sins. Yet this idea lies at the foun- dation of the doctrine of purgatory. If there be no satisfaction of justice, on the part of the sinner, there is no purgatory, for, according to Romanists, purgatory is the place and state in which such satisfaction is rendered. As the renunciation of all depend- ence upon our own merit, of all purpose, desire, or effort to make satisfaction for ourselves, and trusting exclusively to the satisfac- tion rendered by Jesus Christ, is of the very essence of Christian experience, it will be seen that the doctrine of purgatory is in conflict not only with the doctrines of the Bible but also with the religious consciousness of the believer. This is not saying that
758 PART IV. Ch. I. — STATE OF SOUL AFTER DEATH.
no man who believes in purgatory can be a true Christian. The history of the Church proves that Christians can be very incon- sistent; that they may speculatively adhere to doctrines which are inconsistent with what their hearts know to be true.
It is, however, not only the doctrine of satisfaction, but also the absolutely preposterous doctrine of supererogation which must be admitted, if we adopt the creed of the Church of Rome in this matter. The idea is that a man may be more than perfect ; that he may not only do more than the law requires of him, but even render satisfaction to God's justice so meritorious as to be more than sufficient for the pardon of his own sins. This superfluous merit, is the ground on which the sins of those suffering in pur- gatory may be forgiven. This is a subject which does not ad- mit of argument. It supposes an impossibility. It supposes that a rational creature can be better than he ought to be ; i. e., than he is bound to be. Romanists moreover strenuously deny the possibility that Christ's righteousness can be imputed to the be- liever as the ground of his justification ; and yet they teach that the merits of the saints may be imputed to sinners in purgatory as the ground of their forgiveness.
Another antiscriptural assumption involved in the doctrine is that the pope, and his subordinates, have power over the unseen world ; power to retain or to remit the sins of departed souls ; to deliver them from purgatorial fire or to allow them to remain un- der its torments. This is a power which could not be trusted in the hands of an angel. Nothing short of infinite knowledge and infinite rectitude could secure it from .fatal abuse. No such power we may be assured has ever been committed to the hands of sinful men.
There are two entirely different things involved in this priestly power to forgive sins. There are two kinds of punishment de- nounced against sin. The one is the sentence of eternal death ; the other is the temporary punishment to which the sinner re- mains subject after the eternal penalty is remitted.1 With regard
1 In the passage quoted in part on a preceding page, Cardinal Wiseman says: "No fast- ing, no prayess, no alms-deeds, no works that we can conceive to be done by man, however protracted, however expensive or rigorous they may be, can, according to the Catholic doc- trine, have the most infinitesimal weight for obtaining the remission of sin, or of the eter- nal punishment allotted to it. This constitutes the essence of forgiveness, of justification, and in it we hold that man has no power. Now, let us come to the remaining part of the sacrament [of penance]. We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins, that is, after the remission of that eternal debt, which God in his justice awards to transgressions against his law, He has been pleased to reserve a certain degree of inferior or temporary punish- ment appropriate to the guilt which had been incurred; and it is on this part of the punish- ment alone, that, according to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can be made to God." Lectures, at m/nvt, vol. ii. p. 35.