116 66 RULE OF FAITH.- -THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. fidently appeal in cases of doubt. If there be no conscience, there can be no accountability. If there be no law, there can be no transgression. These are principles which no man of sound mind will dispute. They are repeatedly appealed to by the Holy Spirit in the Bible. For instance, our Lord asks, 'Yea, and why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right" -Luke xii. 57. How could they without a judging principle, and a standard of rectitude? "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith-prove your own selves"-2 Cor. xiii. 5. This duty requires a principle that is capable of examining, and a test to which it submits the character. "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good"-1 Thess. v. 21. How can this possibly be done without a discriminating faculty, and a touchstone by which we can distinguish between the precious and the vile? We must be able to give a reason for rejecting some things and retaining others. Our reason is, that we have tried them. But a trial involves two things, a judge and a law. As to the discriminating faculty, or conscience, or judgment (call it what you will), there ought to be no dispute, as the Church of Rome appeals to it to prove her own exclusive authority to guide the human race in the affairs of salvation. To this point your earnest attention is requested. The Church appeals to private judgment to establish her authority. The question now is, What should we take for our guide in religion? What is the rule of faith or the standard of truth? This question is referred to private judgment, before whose tribunal Roman Catholics plead on the one side, and Protestants on the other. The Romish Church is not now on the bench, but at the bar-is not the judge deciding, but the party pleading. The question sub lite-the matter at issue-is, whether the authority of the Church, or something else, shall be the standard of truth and the sole arbiter in religious disputes. Suppose now that she succeeds in establishing her point-that the arguments of various kinds which she advances are held to be valid and convincing by the judge in this case-that, as the mother and mistress of all Churches, she is invested with supreme authority in matters of religionI ask what is the basis of this authority? What, on her own showing, is the ground on which it rests? The answer is obvious-on the decision of private judgment! This is the Atlas that supports the heaven of Romanism. What a proud superstructure to be reared on such a foundation! Yet so it is, provided, be it observed, that she has sustained her claim. This is a question which we must now examine. Protestants contend that the Bible, and the Bible alone, without note or comment, or any authoritative exposition whatever, is the rule of faith. This position the Roman Catholic Church denies, asserting that there are certain unwritten traditions of equal authority with the " Scriptures of truth;" and that God's revelation to man is not a safe guide without her infallible interpretation. But let us hear her own deliberate assertions and solemn decision : "All saving truth is not contained in the holy Scripture, but partly in the Scripture, and partly in unwritten traditions, which, whosoever doth not receive, with like piety and reverence as he doth the Scriptures, is accursed! No one, confiding in his THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. THE PRESENT POPE. 117 own judgment, shall dare to wrest' the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and is still held, by holy mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Writ, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law."-(Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.) In the same session a curse was uttered against all who refuse to receive the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon. And in the Index of Prohibited Books, prepared by order of the same Council, we have the following passage : "Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is on this point referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it, and this permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess it, without such written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers who shall sell, or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the bishop to some pious use, and shall be subject to such other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper!"'(Index, Rule 4.) So spake the Church of Rome in the celebrated Council of Trent. Does she speak now in a different tone? Has "the pressure from without" compelled her yet to grant to her subjects liberty of conscience? As well might she be expected to grant her heart's blood! The letter of the present Pope, from which I have already quoted, is an authentic exposition of Catholic principles at the present day. Gregory XVI. writes as follows: "This matter also occupied very much the attention of the Fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy to so great an evil by publishing a most salutary decree for compiling an index of books in which improper doctrine was contained. For the matter of error will never be effectually removed unless the guilty elements of depravity be consumed in the flames.'† "So that by this continual solicitude, through all ages, with which this holy Apostolic See has ever striven to condemn suspected and noxious books, and to wrest them forcibly out of men's hands (et de hominum manibus extorquere) it is most clear how false, rash, and injurious, to the said Apostolic See, and fruitful of enormous evils to the Christian public, is the doctrine of those who not only reject the censorship of books as too severe and burdensome, but even proceed to that length of wickedness as to assert that it is contrary to the principles of equal justice, and dare deny to the Church the right of enacting and employing it.' The freedom of the press Gregory designates as "that most vile, detest Observe the plausible assumption couched under this language. If you dissent from the Church at all, it is taken for granted that you "wrest" the Scriptures; and, to avoid the odium of denouncing the Bible, as the disseminator of evil, they artfully Burke it with "the temerity of men." In justification of this persecuting principle, he quotes Acts xix. 19, where he says the Apostle Paul burned a great number of books. The Pope is either very ignorant or very disingenuous, for the people themselves voluntarily burned the books when convinced of their errors ! 118 THE POPE AND THE PRESS.—THE PAPAL CLAIMS, &C. able, and never-to-be-sufficiently execrated liberty of booksellers"*—namely, of publishing writings of whatever kind they please—a liberty which some persons (Mr. O'Connell, for instance) dare with such violence of language to demand and promote. Thus have you heard the Church of Rome herself putting forth her lofty claims-claims for the maintenance of which she has not scrupled to trample on all laws, human and divine-imprisoning, torturing, burning, and slaughtering myriads of pious and upright members of society, simply because, in the spirit of Christian meekness, they contended for liberty of conscience! Our Lord says, "If a man bear witness of himself, his witness is not true." The Church of Rome bears witness of herself; and, as she is so deeply interested in the controversy, are we not warranted to demand other evidence than her bare assertion? The Greeks, the Turks, and various heathen nations, are equally confident in maintaining the authority of their respective Churches. How shall we settle their claims? Suppose the Pope, the Mufti, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, were each to address a heathen with a view to convert him. The Bishop of Rome would loudly assert his supremacy and universal lordship as the Vicar of Christ; the Patriarch would extol the ancient glory and purity of his Church, and accuse his Roman brother of departing from the faith; while the successor of Mahomet would denounce them both as "Christian dogs," totally unenlightened and unsanctified. Then would burst forth from each of the high contending parties a torrent of curses, most orthodox, cordial, and bitter! The poor heathen would have a task assigned him more delicate and difficult than fell to the lot of Paris, when called on by three goddesses to award the palm of beauty! The Church of Rome pleads a revelation in her favour; so do the Greek, and the Mahomedan, and the Hindoo, and they seem all equally worthy of credit. Suppose the Hon. and Rev. George Spencer were trying to convert an infidel to the faith which he has adopted, he would say "Let me first observe that an infallible guide is a great blessing to the world, as it prevents variety of opinion among men. "Nonsense, my dear Sir," replies the infidel; "there is as great variety of opinion in the Church of Rome as anywhere else in the world. Doctrines the most heterogeneous and contradictory are cherished within her pale. But she cares not what errors and vices swarm within, provided she can extort outward submission to her authority. It is not for orthodoxy or morality, but for external uniformity, she contends. For this hecatombs innumerable have bled upon her altars. Prevent variety of opinion, indeed! As well might she undertake to arrest the motion of the pulse without destroying life. To compel all the minds in the world, ignorant and educated, stupid and intelligent, gay and contemplative, to think alike! How Utopian! How preposterous! Charles V. could "Deterrima illa et nunquam satis execranda libertas artis librariæ." Sanctissimi Domini nostri Gregorii Epis. Encyc. 1832. THE PRIEST AND THE INFIDEL. -THE POPE'S LOGIC. 119 not make a few watches go together. Remember how sagely the ex-Emperor moralised thereon. The machinery of the human mind is more complicated and delicate than that of a watch! Your Inquisition, Sir, could not prevent the Reformation. Coercion may make hypocrites of knaves and cowards. The upright and honourable are its martyrs." “Well, Sir, as this is a mere subsidiary argument, I will not stop to contest that point, but come to the main question at issue. The infallibility of our Church is a doctrine of revelation, as clearly established as any other truth of the Christian religion. I will first refer you to Matt. "Hold, Sir! not so fast," remarks the infidel. "You are about to prove the infallibility of the Papal Church from the Bible. I am glad that your infallible mother condescends to appeal to my private judgment as to the meaning of the Bible, and especially on a point so important— the very foundation on which she stands ! But allow me to say that there is a preliminary question-I do not believe in the Bible. I hold it to be a collection of fables, a mass of absurdity from beginning to end. You must demonstrate, first of all, that there is a God. Secondly, that he has spoken to man. Thirdly, you must settle the canon of Scripture, adducing such arguments as are calculated to satisfy a candid mind as to the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible. When you have done this, I will expect you to point out the portions of Scripture that teach the infallibility of the Church of Rome, and also to maintain the soundness of your private interpretation of those passages. A Herculean task!" "Oh, not at all, I assure you!" replies Mr. Spencer; "we receive God's Word, written and unwritten, on the authority of the Church, without which we could not know what was Scripture, or what not. Here lies our immense advantage over all the Protestant sects." "Ah, Sir!" observes the infidel, "I did not think you were a gentleman of such extreme simplicity! You undertake to prove the infallibility of your Church You refer to Scripture. I ask you to show me, by solid arguments, that your Scriptures and your traditions are not pure inventions-mere idle fictions—and you quietly refer me to the authority of your Church!-the very thing in dispute! How soon you convert the party on trial into the judge! Pretty logic, indeed! A gentleman comes into court asserting his right to an estate. His counsel makes a speech in his favour. The judge calls for proof of title. A will is handed in. The judge remarks that, if the will be indeed genuine, it is a matter of considerable doubt whether it would bear an interpretation favourable to the claimant; but that being a question for subsequent consideration, he calls, in the first instance, for proof of the genuineness of the document. My Lord, says the counsel, the document is certainly genuine. My client most positively asserts it-nay, is ready to swear it; and as the estate is worth only about £100,000 a-year, surely you would not suspect so honourable a man of stating what is false for such a trifle! Would not this man be laughed out of court, or puninshed for forgery? Yet such is the predicament in which you have placed the Pope! Observe the vicious circle. Is the Pope infallible! Yes; for the Bible asserts it. Is the Bible inspired? Yes; for the Pope asserts it. Was there ever, in the annals of sophistry, a more palpable, clumsy, begging of the question than this? And And yet it is upon this assumption that you are about to build an infallible Church! this assumption, so glaringly unfounded, is her sole authority for murdering Jews, Turks, and Protestants, whenever she has had the power. 66 Suppose some usurper should, by force of arms, seize the sceptre of Britain, and, in order to vindicate his conduct, should allege that the country would otherwise be shamefully misgoverned. This plea of expediency being indignantly rejected by Parliament, he contends that the constitution has been violated, and that, under the circumstances of the case, he is justified by Magna Charta in ascending the throne. This, after much contention, intriguing, and corruption, is at length reluctantly admitted. But in a very short time the usurper begins to abuse his power, and tramples on the rights of the people-abolishing trial by jury, the privilege of petition, and the liberty of the press-espionage, proscriptions, confiscations, and executions, being the order of the day. At length, a deputation from the House of Commons waits upon the tyrant. They recount their grievances, and appeal to Magna Charta, the great charter of their liberty, and the very document on which he had rested his right to the throne. • Insolent men!' interrupts the usurper, frowning and stamping with fury, 'know you not that the document you speak of possesses no authority whatever without my sign manual and interpretation as king of this country, and that none of my subjects must dare to read it without a written order from my Secretary, to be granted to those persons only of whose loyalty I entertain no suspicion ?" " "Sire,' replies the deputation, if Magna Charta possess no authority or meaning without your signature and interpretation as king, it follows that you cannot be the legitimate sovereign of these realms, but a lawless usurper, seeing that the only authority you pleaded in your favour was, by your own confession, no authority at all.' 666 "Soldiers!' exclaims the despot, trembling with råge, 'load these rebels with irons, and drag them to prison. Go, Secretary, and tell the Commons that, if they are not silent on the question of my authority, I will turn my artillery upon them, and blow them into atoms.' "This crowned monster," continues the infidel, “is, mutantis mutandis, the Pope, Magna Charta is the Bible, and the Commons the laity. The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, resting his pretensions on the Bible; and, in the same breath, he tells us we do not know what the Bible is, or what it says, till we are informed by him. Simple man! Does he think there is no common sense in the world? He calls a witness into court to prove his case; and, instead of allowing said witness to speak for himself, or proving that he is worthy of credit, he merely remarks, 'This witness, Gentlemen of the jury, clearly affirms that I am the supreme head of the Church of Christ on earth.' 'But I beg,' says the opposite counsel, 'to cross-examine the witness, in order to ascertain-first, his credibility; and, secondly, the real nature of his testimony.' As to his credibility,' remarks the Pope, with much candour, I freely admit that his oath did not deserve credit in any Court in Europe till I gave him a character; nor even now does his evidence deserve the slightest attention, only when it is in my favour.' |