Page images
PDF
EPUB

tual being, could never have been discovered by man for himself: it must have been revealed. Man could learn from nature all that nature presented for his inspection, but no more: knowledge on subjects which are above nature must have been communicated to man from a source which is above nature; and this super-natural source of knowledge on super-natural subjects is God. This knowledge must have been communicated to man through other men as mediums of such communication. Those communications constitute revealed religion. On the subjects concerned in those communications, the persons through whom they are made are necessarily authorities. No one can deny their authoritativeness except he denies the correctness of their statements—that is, unless he denies that they are such mediums for the communication of religious truth to man.

Of course, the question may come in here, How far are their communications divine? which is only another mode of asking, How far are they authorities? It will suffice our present object to defer the discussion of this question by taking, for argument's sake, the lowest ground. They are authorities certainly to the extent of their being the authorised teachers of religious doctrines. To this extent their authority is final. To this extent, then, as Christians, we must give up the right of private judgment.

But another question, and one of immense importance, needs now to be considered-Who shall interpret these doctrinal teachings? The experience of the world shows us that while agreeing upon the authority of these teachers, men have differed most widely as to what it is that they do teach. Doctrines the most contradictory have been drawn from various parts of the original documents, and this, by men of different intellectual character, truly, but as certainly of equal earnestness, piety, and sincerity. The long list of heresies which have divided and distracted the Church, the discussions on which have imported acrimony, bitterness, and wrath into the history of Christianity, which have given occasion to ruthless persecutions, and which have given rise to political combinations and even national movements, these heresies have all been professedly based on the express or implied teachings of these “Authorities in matters of faith." The variety and discord of these interpretations form indeed a doctrinal Babel, a confusion of tongues, till one marvels if the dulcet tones of the early doctrinal language have indeed survived in the uproar. This strife of opinions has been the war of interpreters; of men who all declared their unqualified assent to the teachings of the writers of the Scriptures, but who claimed that the

views which they promulgated were the very doctrines which the apostles held and taught. The books which have been written to explain the New Testament constitute no small portion of the literature of Christendom; the commentaries would bury the book commented on as under a mountain. In the mental confusion which arises, an earnest and conscientous man may well ask—'What, then, am I to do in order to arrive at true ideas of what our Saviour and the apostles did actually teach? To wade through all these volumes, to compare each of their doctrines with Scripture, and with all other doctrines, and out of the contrarieties to eliminate my own system, or so much of a complete system as my mind can compass, and my spiritual needs can require, is obviously impossible. A lifetime devoted to such weary work would be insufficient, and to devote a lifetime to such a task would be reckless waste. At the end, I might only grow disgusted, both with the confusion of thought and with the savage spirit in which such controversies have been conducted, and deny, not only the accuracy of the interpreters, but the consistency of the Scriptural writers with each other, and even with themselves.'

To this question, asked by an earnest and conscientious man, many answers might be given; but all the answers, as to the principle which they really involve, may be resolved into one of these two-(1.) Use your private judgment, and abide by its decision; or-(2.) Here is a new authority, an authorised interpreter of the Scriptures. These two answers indicate the point of departure of the two great systems of religious thought now existing in Christendom. The Romish and Greek churches on the one hand assert that the Church is the authorised interpreter of the Word of God; while the principle on which Protestantism is theoretically founded, is the right and duty of private judgment. We shall see what an earnest and conscientious man might justly have to say to both.

It might seem that the Romish and Protestant systems present a perfect contrast to each other, such as is expressed in the formulaLIBERTY versus AUTHORITY, as to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Both systems take their stand on the same revealed Word of God (with the exception of some books which the Protestants regard as uncanonical, and a few cases of different renderings of the original Greek of the New Testament, neither of which exceptions, however, need here be more than named). The very first step forward toward understanding these Scriptures separates the systems. One system asserts that, in addition to the Bible, the church possesses authoritative traditions, derived from the Fathers of the church, from the times of the Apostles

down to the present, and which communicate the real meaning of the writers, and thence the true interpretation of the Scriptures. The other system denies the authority of this tradition, even though it had been inviolably preserved; it denies that this tradition can have been inviolably preserved; it denies that even the Romish church has at all times held the same doctrines; it points out various heresies which have prevailed among the highest clergy, been rejected, and have again revived; it cites many an example of how Romish doctors have disagreed in interpreting the Scriptures, notwithstanding this tradition; it reminds the Romanists that the heretics in the early centuries were even more numerous than in later centuries, when, it might be supposed, this tradition was best preserved and understood,—that councils and synods have given contradictory decisions,-that the heretics were equally in possession of this tradition with the church from which they sprang, and equally vociferous in the declaration that tradition as well as Scripture supported and taught their heretical doctrines,—that even the apostolical Fathers, as well as their immediate successors, were neither consistent with each other, nor even with themselves,—that some of the great questions which have divided the church actually date, as to their origin, from the times immediately succeeding the death of the Apostles; and it insists that private judgment is, after all, man's final guide as to the meaning of Scripture. One system relegates to the head of the church, the Pope, and thence to all inferior orders of the priesthood, the duty of declaring what is true or false in matters of faith, and requires the laity to submit their judgment to the "director," as he to his, and so on upwards to the successor of Saint Peter, who, by the logical necessity of the system much more than from the facts of history, is presumed to be infallible. Protestantism points to the facts of history in order to refute the system; it shows that opposing doctrines have been held by different Popes,- that Popes have differed from the church,—that as they have been elected, so also some have been deposed by the cardinals,-that once there were two Popes denouncing and anathematising each other; and it requires that every man shall perform the duty of examining the Scriptures for himself.

The Romish system announces, as the test of doctrinal truth, the formula-what has been "always, everywhere, and by every one' believed; it points out, in its turn, that the exercise of private judgment must, as its inevitable result, divide the church, "the body of Christ," into as many fragments as there are opinions,-that this only multiplies schism,-that this deprives any part of the church of the

power of declaring that its doctrines are true, because it concedes to its opponents the same right of private judgment, and accords to them a similar presumption of being thus led into the truth, that it also takes away all power of declaring that any doctrine is heretical, if, in the exercise of private judgment, any man has conscientiously adopted it; and, finally, it shows that this right, if accorded, would reduce the church to this definition of orthodoxy-" the faith of the largest number;" but as the numbers of parties may come to vary from time to time, there will be no such thing as an orthodox faith at all, and that thus, the strange spectacle would be presented of a church of Christ without any test or guarantee of possessing the true faith. The Protestant system accepts the issue, and denies the conclusion: it demands that no more than what has been "always, everywhere, and by every one" believed, shall constitute the true faith, and challenges its opponents to show what that doctrine is which no doctor has ever denied, which no heresy has ever sought to overthrow, and which has not been assailed at some period of the history of the church; it affirms, or might affirm, that almost the only doctrine which has been universally recognised the "always, everywhere, and by all"—is the fundamental one,— that the Scriptures are the sole authority in matters of faith; and it contends that, as the doctors differ on every other point, and as it must be the private judgment of some one which must decide between the doctors, and as the introduction of the doctors of the church only complicates the problem, without being essential to it, and as a man can truly believe only that to be the truth of which he has satisfied himself, therefore each man has the right of judging for himself from the Word of God what is true, and is in duty bound to exercise it. As to the results of the practice, in provoking differences of opinion, the Protestant system further retorts, that it questions whether greater divergencies can take place in its case than have already taken place in the case of its opponent, despite the restraint which the Church of Rome has ever striven to impose, by denying to its members the right of private judgment. Therefore, Protestantism theoretically asserts that the authority of any of the greatest writers which the church has produced, since the apostles and evangelists, extends no farther than the evident truth of his opinions, as based upon, and confirmed by, the number and plainness of the passages of Scripture which are quoted, or might be quoted, in their support. Of this "evident truth" each reader is to be the judge. The Word of God is the only authority, and private judgment is man's only guide to the understanding of it.

It must be admitted,' says the supposititious, earnest, and conscientious inquirer, that Protestantism is the great emancipator of the human mind; that it has enfranchised men from what might easily become slavery-this cribbed submission of the judgment to the dogmatic declarations of that composite entity, the church. Whether or not we are able to use this liberty with discretion, it is certain that it is liberty, and as such, is sweet. But while Protestantism retorts upon Romanism the ridiculous consequences of its position, it does not meet the real difficulty-how we are to be sure that we have found out the truth? If so many have striven honestly to understand the Word, and yet have gone so far astray, and so contradict each other, how am I to hope that I shall succeed if I try; or having tried, how am I to be sure that the conclusions I arrive at are the very truths of God? Protestantism can reduce the position of Romanism to an absurdity, and Romanism can also reduce the position of Protestantism to an absurdity. Am I to conclude, then, that both positions are absurd, and that there is no reasonable truth in the matter? Both Romanism, asserting the authority of the church, and Protestantism, denying it, have been unable to preserve "the unity of the faith:" Rome doing its utmost to repress thought has not attained it; and Protestantism by its very principle renders the attainment of this end impossible. Is there nothing in the end itself that should make it valuable? How else can a man feel sure that he has the true faith?

'Besides,' he continues, I observe a strange fact. Protestant denominations thro off the dogma of the authority of the church as an incubus, but take up the equally heavy incubus of acknowledging the authority of some synod, conference, or assembly; they reject the canons of various episcopal and other councils, and unquestioningly submit to the decisions of the Synod of Dort; they reject the authority of the doctors in the aggregate, and submit their minds to the authority of one doctor, like Calvin; the Westminster catechism obtains the reverence which they denounce in Romanists, as shown towards the latest dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; Wesley's sermons become to others as authoritative as the decretals of popes; and, while asserting the right of private judgment, many denominations seem ready to denounce as unorthodox any departure from the faith which they individually hold. They whisper the epithet, "heretic," even if they do not openly employ it; and only shame can prevent them from talking about "schism.' What am I to conclude from this? That there is a natural, an inevitable tendency

« PreviousContinue »