CHAPTER VIII

NONCONFORMISTS, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT

THE definiteness of dogma in the Roman Catholic community might seem to leave but little ground for diversity of religious thought. Progress or development is of the nature of heresy, unless it be such a development as finds the official sanction of the Church, then it is Catholic doctrine. But man is an intellectual being, and he will think and reason even when under restraint. Hence we find heresies and heretics in the Church of Rome, though it may be sometimes barely tolerated or marked with a note of censure. In the first year of the century died one whom Roman Catholics do not care to recognise, but who to the end of his life clung to the Roman Communion. Alexander Geddes1 was born in the far north of Scotland. He was the child of humble parents whose ancestors remained Roman Catholics after the Reformation. In his father's house was an English Bible, the study of which was the delight of his youth. It inspired him with the idea which ruled his life, to give to his co-religionists a good and correct version of the Scriptures in the English tongue. He was not satisfied with the Protestant version and still less with that of Douay which he said had been made by men whose tempers were soured by controversy and whose vernacular language had been corrupted by residence in a foreign land." This version was 'a barbarous translation from the Vulgate before its last revision and accompanied with acrimonious and injurious annotations.'

We need not say that Geddes interpreted all Roman Catholic dogmas in the mild and half Protestant form which they have taken in the hands of some other divines of the same communion. His biographer1 says that he took the sacred Scriptures alone as his standard of faith and exhorted every member of his congregation to do the same, to study for himself, to interpret for himself and to submit to no foreign control except in matters fairly decided by the Catholic Church at large in General Councils. He would ridicule the infallibility of the Pope and laugh at images, rosaries, scapulars, Agnus Deis, blessed medals, indulgences, obits and dirges as much as the most inveterate Protestant in the neighbourhood.'

In 1800, Geddes published A Modest Apology' for those of the Roman Catholic Religion. It took the form of a vindication of their civil rights. He insisted strongly on retaining the distinction between Catholics and Papists. The former were innocent and inoffensive persons, but the latter were violent. They made unreasonable attacks on Protestants and pertinaciously maintained points of doctrine and discipline, which were certainly not Catholic. The indiscretions and violence of the Papists should not be charged on the whole body of Catholics. In this demand there was probably an allusion to the controversy raised by Dr Milner's History of Winchester. Dr Sturges, who answered Milner on the very title of his book, called all the Roman Catholics of Britain by the name of Papists. Again it is not right to make Roman Catholics of the present day responsible for the sins of their forefathers. The 'enormous excesses' of the Roman Catholic Church in other ages, and in other countries, should not be laid to the charge of the English Catholics of our time. Nor should they be held responsible for 'the fabrication of false decretals, the rage for idle pilgrimages, the vile traffic in indulgences, the propagation of lying legends, feigned miracles, and apocryphal revelations, and the Pope's infallibility.' These are merely the 'tares and the cockle,' that have grown up while men slept. They have been denounced by the Bernards and the Gersons of the Catholic Church as much as by any Protestants. Nor is it right to charge Catholics with

CHAPTER VIII

NONCONFORMISTS, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT

THE definiteness of dogma in the Roman Catholic community might seem to leave but little ground for diversity of religious thought. Progress or development is of the nature of heresy, unless it be such a development as finds the official sanction of the Church, then it is Catholic doctrine. But man is an intellectual being, and he will think and reason even when under restraint. Hence we find heresies and heretics in the Church of Rome, though it may be sometimes barely tolerated or marked with a note of censure. In the first year of the century died one whom Roman Catholics do not care to recognise, but who to the end of his life clung to the Roman Communion. Alexander Geddes1 was born in the far north of Scotland. He was the child of humble parents whose ancestors remained Roman Catholics after the Reformation. In his father's house was an English Bible, the study of which was the delight of his youth. It inspired him with the idea which ruled his life, to give to his co-religionists a good and correct version of the Scriptures in the English tongue. He was not satisfied with the Protestant version and still less with that of Douay which he said had been made by men whose tempers were soured by controversy and whose vernacular language had been corrupted by residence in a foreign land.' This version was 'a barbarous translation from the Vulgate before its last revision and accompanied with acrimonious and injurious annotations.'

We need not say that Geddes interpreted all Roman Catholic dogmas in the mild and half Protestant form which they have taken in the hands of some other divines of the same communion. His biographer1 says that he took the sacred Scriptures alone as his standard of faith and exhorted every member of his congregation to do the same, to study for himself, to interpret for himself and to submit to no foreign control except in matters fairly decided by the Catholic Church at large in General Councils. He would ridicule the infallibility of the Pope and laugh at images, rosaries, scapulars, Agnus Deis, blessed medals, indulgences, obits and dirges as much as the most inveterate Protestant in the neighbourhood.'

In 1800, Geddes published 'A Modest Apology' for those of the Roman Catholic Religion. It took the form of a vindication of their civil rights. He insisted strongly on retaining the distinction between Catholics and Papists. The former were innocent and inoffensive persons, but the latter were violent. They made unreasonable attacks on Protestants and pertinaciously maintained points of doctrine and discipline, which were certainly not Catholic. The indiscretions and violence of the Papists should not be charged on the whole body of Catholics. In this demand there was probably an allusion to the controversy raised by Dr Milner's History of Winchester. Dr Sturges, who answered Milner on the very title of his book, called all the Roman Catholics of Britain by the name of Papists. Again it is not right to make Roman Catholics of the present day responsible for the sins of their forefathers. The 'enormous excesses' of the Roman Catholic Church in other ages, and in other countries, should not be laid to the charge of the English Catholics of our time. Nor should they be held responsible for 'the fabrication of false decretals, the rage for idle pilgrimages, the vile traffic in indulgences, the propagation of lying legends, feigned miracles, and apocryphal revelations, and the Pope's infallibility.' These are merely the 'tares and the cockle,' that have grown up while men slept. They have been denounced by the Bernards and the Gersons of the Catholic Church as much as by any Protestants. Nor is it right to charge Catholics with

inferences made from their beliefs. Just as it would not be fair to say that the Church of England denies the Headship of Christ, because it acknowledges the civil ruler to be supreme in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil, so is it unfair for Protestants to charge their inferences on doctrines held by Catholics. Protestant representations of Catholic doctrines are often calumny or caricature, but even if they were as bad as Protestants say they are, this would be no just plea for withholding civil rights.

་

The Articles of Religion,' so far as their teaching is positive, teach substantially what Roman Catholics believe. There is no such break between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in their credenda as is commonly supposed. Some theologians, especially those of the Sorbonne have confessed that every fundamental article of faith is found either explicitly or implicitly in the written Word, and some Protestant theologians have been willing to grant that every article of faith is not so clearly and expressly revealed in the written Word as not to stand in need of apostolical tradition and a secondary support.

The supremacy of the Pope was first introduced into the definition of the Church' by the Jesuit Canisius. Before that it was simply 'the congregation of the saints.' The idea of Papal infallibility is 'scouted by every Roman Catholic of the present age.' As to councils it is doubtful if there ever was one strictly oecumenical. Certainly no Roman Catholic of the present day would ascribe infallibility to the second of Nice, to that of Florence or Constance. The canon of Vincentius of Lerins would set aside all the creeds, for they each contain something not 'believed always, everywhere, and by all.'

The Pope's supremacy properly understood is not inimical to civil government. Whenever and wherever it has been so, it has been in virtue of an unlawful assumption of authority. The Pope has no primacy by divine right. No such primacy was given even to St Peter. It came to the bishops of Rome simply because their see was the capital of the empire, just as the Bishop of Constantinople got the second place as Bishop of New Rome.