LECCIÓN I. INTRODUCCIÓN.
LA CONTROVERSIA CON ROMA
Razones del reciente declive del interés en la controversia, págs. 2-5.
(a) Separación de la Iglesia, pág. 2; (b) reacción contra las declaraciones antirromanas exageradas, págs. 2, 3; (c) mayor circulación de libros de devoción católicos, pág. 4; (d) la lucha contra la incredulidad, pág. 4; (e) el auge del escepticismo, pág. 5. El estudio, no obstante, provechoso, pág. 6. La controversia, aunque no siempre conveniente, pág. 6; a veces necesaria para la autodefensa, pág. 7. El examen de las pretensiones romanas, un deber, pág. 8. El uso del término «protestante», pág. 9. Qué debe probarse para eximirnos de la culpa del cisma, pág. 10. Aparente antagonismo de las doctrinas católicas a las Escrituras, pág. 11; sin embargo, la discusión, basada en las Escrituras, suele ser ineficaz en la práctica, pág. 12. El peligro de usar argumentos débiles, pág. 13. La falta de fiabilidad de las citas controvertidas, pág. 15. El espíritu con el que debe abordarse la controversia, pág. 16.
LECCIÓN II. LA IMPORTANCIA FUNDAMENTAL DE LA CUESTIÓN DE LA INFALIBILIDAD - 17
Evidente a partir de consideraciones a priori, pág. 17; de la historia de la controversia en tiempos recientes, pág. 18. Refutación de las doctrinas católicas en los Tratados para la Época, pág. 19; por hombres que posteriormente se convirtieron en católicos, pág. 19. ¿Qué significa realmente aceptar la pretensión católica de infalibilidad?, pág. 19. Cambios modernos en la doctrina católica, pág. 20. Definición del Dogma de la Inmaculada Concepción, pág. 20. La infalibilidad personal del Papa, pág. 20. El Concilio Vaticano II, pág. 21. Carta de Newman a Ullathorne, pág. 21; Janus, pág. 22. Origen de los viejos católicos, pág. 22; su inconsistencia, pág. 24. Cambios en los libros de texto católicos romanos hechos necesarios Concilio Vaticano, pág. 25. Teología de Bailly, pág. 25. Catecismo de Keenan, pág. 26. Los católicos romanos reconocen que la Biblia por sí sola no proporciona una base suficiente para su sistema, pág. 28; en esto difieren de los primeros Padres, pág. 29. Regla de Bellarmino respecto a la tradición, pág. 29. El desafío de Jewel, pág. 29. Ensayo de Newman sobre el desarrollo, págs. 31-44; anticipaciones de la teoría, pág. 31; aplicaciones de la misma, pág. 32; abandona por completo la antigua defensa hecha por los defensores católicos romanos, pág. 33. El Concilio de Trento, Milner, Wiseman, pág. 33. Veneración por los Padres tradicional en la Iglesia romana, pág. 34; esta veneración no es consistente con la teoría del desarrollo, pág. 35. La controversia entre Bossuet y Jurieu, pág. 35. La teoría del desarrollo entonces sostenida por los calvinistas, pág. 35; y también por Petau, pág. 36. La oposición de Bossuet a la teoría, pág. 36. La gran obra del obispo Bull, pág. 36. El ensayo de Newman, recibido con dudas al principio, pág. 37. Un defensor del catolicismo católico fuertemente tentado a aceptarlo, pág. 38. Newman sobre la invocación de la Virgen, pág. 38. La doctrina del desarrollo concede lo que afirman los opositores del catolicismo católico, pág. 39; inútil para los católicos católicos si no se complementa con la doctrina de la infalibilidad, pág. 39. La doctrina del desarrollo serviría igualmente para justificar el protestantismo, pág. 40. Gran dificultad histórica en el camino de la doctrina, pág. 40. Limitación local de los supuestos desarrollos, pág. 41. Superioridad de los desarrollos protestantes, pág. 41. Manning y Spurgeon, pág. 43. Tendencia infiel de la línea argumental católica romana, pág. 44. No se pueden descuidar con seguridad ciertos temas de controversia, pág. 45. Historia ordinaria de las conversiones del catolicismo romano,
LECCIÓN III. EL ARGUMENTO EN CÍRCULO - - 47 JUICIO PRIVADO, págs. 47-53.
Origen del anhelo de una guía infalible, pág. 47. El juicio privado y la infalibilidad no se contraponen, pág. 47. Necesidad del juicio privado, pág. 48. Prueba de que la sumisión a Roma se basa en un acto de juicio privado, pág. 48. Cómo usar el juicio privado, pág. 49. Sobre qué fundamentos se reclama deferencia a la autoridad del Papa, pág. 51. La deferencia que un teólogo erudito puede reclamar no se compara adecuadamente con la que un médico puede exigir a sus pacientes, pág. 52. Fundamento de la fe de un católico romano, pág. 53. No es posible probar la infalibilidad sin argumentar en círculo, pág. 53. El intento del obispo Clifford de escapar de esta dificultad, pág. 55. Su insuficiencia, pág. 57. El método de Newman, pág. 58. En la Iglesia de Roma, no es posible una verificación posterior de su enseñanza, pág. 60. El resurgimiento del argumento de Newman por parte de Mallock, pág. 60. Tendencia infiel de su postura, pág. 60.
d
LECCIÓN IV. PÁGINA 62: LA GRAMÁTICA DEL ASENTO
Razones del Sr. Capes para regresar a la Iglesia de Inglaterra, pág. 62. ¿A qué tipo de certeza se aferran los católicos romanos?, pág. 62.
La teoría del Concilio Vaticano, pág. 62. Cómo evitar ser descubierto al argumentar a partir de un principio falso, pág. 63. La Gramática del Asentimiento de Newman, págs. 64-77. Cómo adquirimos creencias, pág. 65. El dictamen de Locke sobre el asentimiento con el que debemos aceptar las creencias, pág. 66. La Ética de la Creencia de Clifford, pág. 66. ¿De qué depende nuestra confianza en la creencia tradicional?, pág. 67; ¿de qué depende nuestra confianza en la enseñanza de la Iglesia?, pág. 68. La teoría de Newman sobre el 'sentido ilativo', pág. 69. ¿Puede un hombre estar seguro de algo sin ser infalible? pág. 72. ¿Sobre qué cosas podemos estar tan seguros? pág. 72. La autoridad del Papa no es una de ellas. pág. 73. No hay una línea divisoria clara entre certeza y alta probabilidad. pág. 74. La indefectibilidad, ¿es un atributo de la certeza? pág. 75. Cuanto más hablamos de certeza, menos tenemos. pág. 76.
LECTURA VII. EL OFICIO DE ENSEÑANZA DE LA IGLESIA - - 109
En ningún tema podemos prescindir de maestros, p. 109; pero nuestros maestros no son infalibles, p. 110. Qué se entiende realmente por una Iglesia infalible, p. 111. La analogía de la enseñanza universitaria, p. 111. Las condiciones del progreso para la raza humana, p. 112. Las concesiones mutuas sobre este tema han dejado poco espacio para la controversia, p. 113. Cómo Cristo quiso que aprendiéramos su religión, p. 113. El servicio realmente prestado por la Iglesia, p. 114; puede admitirse plenamente sin reconocer su infalibilidad, p. 115. Verdadera analogía con la relación entre un maestro cristiano y sus alumnos, p. 116. Si la Iglesia es infalible, la Biblia es inútil y dañina, p. 117. La Iglesia primitiva fomentó la lectura de la Biblia, p. 117. San Juan Crisóstomo sobre el estudio de las Escrituras, págs. 118-122. Lo que dicen los católicos romanos en respuesta, pág. 122. El desaliento de la lectura de la Biblia por parte de la Iglesia de Roma moderna, pág.
LECCIÓN VIII.
LAS FUENTES DE PRUEBA DE LA IGLESIA - 125
Fórmula del Dr. Hawkins, pág. 125. Método de la Iglesia de Inglaterra, pág. 125. Método del Concilio de Trento, pág. 126. Regla de fe, según la estableció Bellarmino, pág. 126. Falacia en el argumento de que la Palabra de Dios tiene igual validez tanto si se recibe por escrito como oralmente, pág. 126. La cuestión de la regla de fe como un aspecto secundario en esta controversia, pág. 127. El significado de la apelación romana a la tradición, pág. 128. Canon del Concilio de Trento sobre la interpretación de las Escrituras, pág. 128; plasmado en una variación del Credo del Papa Pío IV, pág. 129. Regla de fe romana: compleja, pág. 129; y moderna, pág. 130. La tradición, como regla de fe, necesita el complemento de la doctrina de la infalibilidad (pág. 130). Incertidumbre de la tradición (pág. 131). Se desestiman los argumentos a priori a favor de la suficiencia de la Escritura (pág. 132). La suficiencia de la Escritura no puede probarse mediante la propia Escritura (pág. 132). ¿Qué se entiende por apelación católica a la tradición? (pág. 133). ¿Pueden existir nuevas tradiciones? (pág. 134). La objeción de que el Nuevo Testamento se basa en la autoridad de la tradición (pág. 134). Ausencia de tradiciones fidedignas sobre la época apostólica (pág. 135); ejemplos (pág. 135). ¿Por qué no utilizamos tradiciones independientes de la Escritura como prueba de la doctrina cristiana? (pág. 137).
LECCIÓN IX. LA REGLA DE FE - 139
Ambigüedad en la expresión «regla de fe», pág. 139. La autoridad de los Credos, pág. 139. Ambigüedad de la palabra «tradición», pág. 140. La triple división de las tradiciones según Bellarmine, pág. 140. El uso de la palabra «tradición» en los Treinta y Nueve Artículos, pág. 141. La lista de Tertuliano de costumbres eclesiásticas no autorizadas por las Escrituras, pág. 142. «Tradición», como significado de la «res tradita» y el «modus tradendi», pág. 142. Prueba por tradición de que las Escrituras son una regla de fe plena y perfecta, pág. 143. San Basilio, pág. 143. San Cipriano, pág. 144. La controversia sobre el bautismo herético, pág. 145. San Agustín, pág. 146. San Jerónimo, pág. 147. Tratado de Tertuliano sobre la prescripción, págs. 147-151. La tradición y los gnósticos, pág. 148. El argumento de la unidad de las diferentes Iglesias pierde fuerza en manos de los católicos romanos, pág. 151.
LECCIÓN XI. ¿CREE LA IGLESIA DE ROMA EN SU PROPIA INFALIBILIDAD? - 169
La existencia de una guía infalible, generalmente dada por sentada por los romanistas sin pruebas, pág. 170. Las notas de la Iglesia, pág. 170. La timidez de la Iglesia de Roma al ejercer su supuesto don de infalibilidad, pág. 172. Las mañanas de Seymour con los jesuitas, pág. 173. ¿Ha reivindicado formalmente la Iglesia de Roma su infalibilidad?, pág. 173. La tardanza de la reivindicación refuta su validez, pág. 175. Disputas sobre el órgano de la infalibilidad, pág. 175. Ambigüedad del término «autoridad», pág. 177. La interferencia de un tipo de autoridad siempre es bienvenida, la del otro es reprobada, pág. 177. La historia de la doctrina de la Inmaculada Concepción, pág. 179. Sixto IV; el Concilio de Trento, pág. 180. La opinión del obispo Milner, pág. 182. Pío IX, pág. 183. La controversia sobre el oportunismo, pág. 183. Las congregaciones de auxiliis, pág. 184. La participación de Bellarmino en la controversia, pág. 185. El temor a la secesión demuestra falta de fe en las pretensiones romanas, pág. 186.
VII. THE CHURCH'S OFFICE OF TEACHING.
ON the last day I sufficiently showed that the foundation for their system, which Roman Catholics assume as self-evident, namely, that God has appointed someone on earth able to give infallible guidance to religious truth, admits of no proof, and is destitute of all probability. But when we say that God has not provided us with infallible guidance, we are very far from saying that He has provided for us no guidance at all. I do not think a Protestant can render a greater service to the cause of Romanism than by depreciating the value of the guidance towards the attain- ment of religious truth given us by the Church which Christ has founded. ' Hoc Ithacus velit.' This is the alternative they want to bring us to either an infallible Church, whose teaching is to be subject to no criticism and no correction, or else no Church teaching at all, each individual taking the Bible, and getting from it, by his own arbitrary interpretation, any system of doctrine he can. Reducing us to this alternative, they have no difficulty in showing that the latter method inevitably leads to a variety of discordant error ; and they conclude we are forced to fall back on the other.
But in what subject in the world is it dreamed that we have got to choose between having infallible teachers, or else having no teacher at all? God has made the world so that we cannot do without teachers. We come into the world as ignorant as we are helpless : not only dependent on the care of others for food and warmth, without which neglected in- fancy must perish, but dependent on the instruction of others for our most elementary knowledge. The most original discoverer that ever lived owed the great bulk of his knowledge to the teaching of others, and the amount of knowledgewhich he has added to the common stock bears an infini-tesimally small proportion to that which he inherited. Tothink of being independent of the teaching of others, is asidle as to think of being independent of the atmospherewhich surrounds us. Roman Catholic advocates can show,with perfect truth, that anyone who imagines he is drawinghis system of doctrine all by himself from the Bible alone,really does nothing of the kind. Of course, if a man readsthe Bible in a translation, he cannot imagine that he is inde-pendent of help from others. In any case, the selection ofbooks that make the volume was made for him by others; the reverence that he pays to its contents is due to instruc-tion which he received in his boyhood ; and, besides, it isundeniable that it is natural to us all to read the Bible in thelight of the previous instruction we received in our youth.How else is it that the members of so many different sectseach find in the Bible the doctrines they have been trainedto expect to find there?
Human teaching, then, we cannot possibly do without inany subject whatever; but are our teachers infallible? I grant that, by children and ignorant persons, it is necessarythat they should practically be regarded so. It is said that,when Dr. Busby showed Charles II. over Westminster School,he kept on his hat, though the king was bareheaded, andexplained to the monarch afterwards that he should loseall authority over his boys if they once found out that therewas anyone in the kingdom greater than himself. Certain it is that boys will not respect a teacher if they find out that heis capable of making mistakes. And this frame of mind is thebest for the pupils' progress. When our knowledge is scanty,it is more important that we should be receptive than critical ; or rather, if we attempt to be critical, we cannot be properlyreceptive. In the earliest stages, then, of instruction, a stu-dent makes most progress if he gets a teacher in whomhecan put faith, and accepts from him with docility all theinformation he is able to impart to him. But you know thatthe teacher's infallibility is not real : it is only relative and temporary ; and an advanced student, instead of respecting a man more, respects him less if he pretends that he is in- capable of sometimes making a slip. It is a maxim with chess-players, if you meet a player who says he has never been beaten, to offer to give him the odds of the rook. And what is intended plainly is, that the delusion of invincibility can never grow up in the mind of anyone except one who has never met a strong antagonist. Just in the same way, the delusion of infallibility can never grow up except in the mind of one who only mixes with inferiors, and does not allow his opinions to be tested by independent criticism. And we may say the same of Churches as of individuals. An infallible Church does not mean a Church which makes no mistakes, but only one which will neither acknowledge its mistakes nor correct them.
With respect to the teaching of secular knowledge, Universities have a function in some sort corresponding to that which the Church has been divinely appointed to fulfil in the communication of religious knowledge. If I said that University teaching of the mathematical and physical sciences was not infallible, you would not suspect me of being so ungrateful as to wish to disparage that teaching to which I owe all my own knowledge of these subjects. You would not suppose that I wished our students to receive with hesitation and suspicion the lessons of their instructors. You would not suppose that I was myself in the least sceptical as to the substantial truth of what is taught in these lessons. And yet I could not help owning that University teaching may possibly include errors, and must be willing to admit correction. Why, I could name one point of astronomical science in which it has altered within myown experience. When I was taught the planetary theory, I was given a demonstration, which I accepted as conclusive, that the changes in the orbits of the planets caused by their mutual action were all of a periodic character, and could not overthrow the stability of the system. At present the con- trary opinion prevails, and it is held that the solar system is not constituted for eternal duration. In any case, no one can imagine that University teaching was infallible in those pre-Reformation days, when what was taught was thePtolemaic system of astronomy. And yet it would be equallyfalse to say that University teaching was even then of smallvalue; for I suppose the great reformer, Newton, could havemade none of the discoveries if it had not been for theknowledge his University had taught him.
Now, we have no right to assume as self-evident that thelaws which govern the communication of religious knowledgemust be utterly unlike those which regulate our acquirementof every other kind of knowledge. In every other department of knowledge we must assert the necessity of humanteaching; we must own that one who will not condescend tolearn must be content to be ignorant ; we must hold that thelearner must receive the teaching he gets with deference andsubmission ; and yet we do not imagine that the teachers areinfallible, and we maintain that the learner ought ultimatelyto arrive at a point when he is no longer dependent on themere testimony of his instructors, but becomes competent topass an independent judgment on the truth of the statementsmade to him.
Improvements are made in metaphysics, political economy,and other sciences, not by persons who have thought out thewhole subject for themselves, without help from others, butby those who, having been well instructed in what has beendone already, then, by their own thought and study, correctthe mistakes of their predecessors even of the very teachersfrom whom they have themselves learned. In fact, the wholeprogress of the human race depends on the two things human teaching, and teaching which will submit to correction. If there was no teaching there would be no progress,for each generation would start where its predecessor did, and there would be no reason why one should be more successful than another; and obviously there would be noprogress if one generation was not permitted to improve onanother. What actually happens is, that the new generation,rapidly learning from its predecessors, starts where theyended and is enabled to advance further and to start the nextgeneration on still more favourable terms.
There need be no difficulty now in coming to an agreement, that the divinely-appointed methods for man's acquirement of secular and of religious knowledge are not so very dis- similar. On the one hand, the finality and perfection of Church teaching which was the doctrine of the older school of Roman Catholic advocates is quite abandoned in the modern theory of development which has now become fashionable. That theory acknowledges that the teaching of the Church may be imperfect and incomplete ; and though it is too polite to call it erroneous, the practical line of distinc- tion between error and imperfection is a fine one and difficult to draw, as I could easily show by examples, if it were not that they would lead me too far from my subject. On the other hand we, for our part, are quite ready to admit that God did not intend us, in religious matters any more than in any other, to dispense with the instruction of others. We do not imagine that God meant each man to learn his religion from the Bible without getting help from anybody else. We freely confess that we need not only the Bible, but human instruction in it. And this need, we hold, was foreseen and provided for by the Founder of our religion. He formed His followers into a community, each member of which was to be benefited by the good offices of the rest, and who, in particular, were to build up one another in their most holy Faith. More than this, He appointed a special order of men whose special duty it is to teach and to impress on the minds of the people the great doctrines of the Faith. In the institution of His Church, Christ has provided for the instruction of those who, either from youth or lack of time or of knowledge, might be unable or unlikely to study His Word for themselves.
Let me just remind you of the stock topics of declamation of Roman Catholics on the theme that Christ intended us to learn His religion, not from the Bible but from the Church. The first Christians, they tell us, did not learn their religion from books. There were flourishing Churches before any Book of the New Testament was written. The first Christians were taught by the living voice of apostles and evangelists and preachers. Since their time thousands upon thousands of good men have gone to heaven in ignorance of the Bible; for, before printing was discovered, books were scarce and the power of reading them uncommon. Even in our owntime the illiterate are numerous ; yet who will venture to denythat many, ignorant of the knowledge of this world, maybepossessed of the knowledge that maketh wise unto salvation ? All these have learned their religion from the Church, not theBible. When those who can read take up the Bible, they findit is not a book adapted for teaching our religion to those whodo not know it already. The writers of the New Testamentwere all addressing men who had been previously instructedorally : and an acquaintance with the doctrines of the Gospelon the part of the reader is therefore assumed. The Bibleitself contains no systematic statement of doctrine, no examples of the catechetical instruction given to the early converts. Of many most important doctrines you do not findthe proof on the very surface of the Bible : you have to studythe Scripture attentively to find it out; and it may well bedoubted whether, in some cases, you would have ever foundit if the Church had not pointed it out to you.
All this (to which much more of the same kind might beadded) would be very difficult to answer, if we imagined it was any part of Christ's scheme to make us independent ofthe good offices of our fellow-men in learning our religion;but it goes idly by us who cheerfully acknowledge that Christforesaw our need of human instruction, and provided for it, not only by the ordinary dispensations of His providence,but by the institution of His Church, whose special duty it is to preserve His truth and proclaim it to the world. I needscarcely say how well this duty has been performed ; howfully the Church has provided, in her formularies and by thelabour of her ministers, for the instruction of those who mightbe either unwilling or unable to obtain it otherwise. Theilliterate may, through her learn those truths which make wiseunto salvation ; the careless may have them forced on theirattention ; even the most learned have, by her means, theirstudy of God's Word aided to a greater degree than they are,perhaps, themselves aware of. Ever since the Church wasfounded, the work she has done in upholding the truth hasbeen such, that the words 'pillar and ground of the truth' arenot too strong to express the services she has rendered. She has preserved the Scriptures, and borne witness to their authority; she has, by her public reading, forced her members to become acquainted with them ; she has embodied some of their most important doctrines in creeds which she has taught to her members. Even in the times when her teaching was mixed with most error she preserved the means of its correction. There was no new revelation of Divine truth made at the Reformation : it was by means of the Bible, which the Church had never ceased to honour, and through the instrumentality of regular clergy of the Church, and by reviving the memory of lessons taught by some of its most eminent teachers in former days, that the Reformation was brought about.
Nor do I hesitate to acknowledge the services rendered by the Church in the interpretation of Scripture. We need not hesitate to grant, in the case of the Bible, what we should grant in the case of any profane author. Were the object of our study an ordinary classical writer, an interpreter who, devoid of all sobriety of judgment, should scorn to study the opinions of the wise and learned men who had preceded him would be likely to arrive at conclusions more startling for their novelty than valuable for their correctness. Again, if the subject of our study were the opinions of a heathen philosopher, we should not refuse to consider the question, what was supposed to be his doctrine by the school which he founded ? Not that we should suppose their tradition to be more trustworthy authority as to the doctrines of their master than his own written statements. We might think it more likely than not, that a succession of ingenious men would add something of their own to what had been originally committed to them ; and yet we should not think it right to refuse to listen to the tradition of the school as to the doctrine of its founder to listen with attention, though not with blind acquiescence.
But, when every concession to the authority of the Church and to the services she had rendered has been made, we come very far short of teaching her infallibility. A town clock is of excellent use in publicly making known with authority the correct time making it known to many who, perhaps, at no time, and certainly not at all times, would find it convenient or even possible to verify its correctness for themselves. Andyet it is clear, that one who maintained the great desirabilityof having such a clock, and believed it to be of great use tothe neighbourhood, would not be in the least inconsistent ifhe also maintained that it was possible for the clock to goastray, and if, on that account, he inculcated the necessity offrequently comparing it with, and regulating it by, the dialwhich receives its light from heaven. And if we desired toremove an error which had accumulated during a long seasonof neglect, it would be very unfair to represent us as wishing to silence the clock, or else as wishing to allow everytownsman to get up and push the hands back or forward ashe pleased.
In sum, then, I maintain that it is the office of the Churchto teach ; but that it is her duty to do so, not by makingassertion merely, but by offering proofs ; and, again, thatwhile it is the duty of the individual Christian to receive withdeference the teaching of the Church, it is his duty also notlistlessly to acquiesce in her statements, but to satisfy himself of the validity of her proofs.
I said, in a former lecture, that the true analogy to therelation between a Christian teacher and his pupils is not thatbetween a physician and his patients, but rather that betweena physician and the class of students whom he is teachingmedical science. A simple test will show that this was theview practically taken by the early Fathers. We never hearthe captain of a ship going among the passengers, and imploring them to study the charts, and not take his word that theyare in the right course, but convince themselves of their trueposition. A physician does not exhort his patients to studytheir own case out of medical books ; on the contrary, hewould be sorry to see them perplexing themselves withastudy which could do them no good, but, on the contrary,might stand in the way of their obediently following his directions. But exhortation to study, of this kind, you will hearfrom a medical lecturer to the students whom he is teachingthe profession. He will frankly tell them the reasons for thecourse of treatment which he advises ; he will not ask themto receive anything merely on his authority; he will give them references to the best authors who have written on the same subject. He talks in this way to his class never to the patients on whom he practises; so, in like manner, it would be the duty of the rulers of an infallible Church to exhort the people to receive their doctrines without question ; but not to exhort them to examine the grounds on which the doctrine was established.
If, in fact, the Church be infallible, it is impossible to understand why the Bible was given. It cannot be of much use in making men wise unto salvation, for that the Church is sup- posed to do already. But it may be used by the ignorant and unstable to pervert it to their own destruction. If a Christian, reading the Bible for himself, puts upon it the interpretation which the Church puts upon it, he is still no better off than if he had never looked at it, and had contented himself with the same lessons as taught by the Church ; but if he puts upon it a different interpretation from that of the Church (and if the Church be infallible, her interpretation is right and every other wrong), then he is deeply injured by having been allowed to examine for himself. Thus, if the Church be infallible, Bible reading is all risk and no gain. And so, in modern times the Church of Rome has always discouraged the reading of the Scripture by her people ; and if her theory be right, she has done so consistently and wisely. And therefore I say it is a proof that this theory was not held in ancient times, when we find that the early Fathers had no such scruples, but incessantly urged on their congregations the duty of searching the Scriptures for themselves.
I will take one Father as an example St. Chrysostom ; and there is no unfairness in my choosing him, for I do so only on account of his eloquence and vigour. You will find the same sentiments, though perhaps less forcibly expressed, in every early Father. My quotations from him will serve a double purpose both to prove the point on which I am immediately engaged that at that time Christian teachers, instead of asking their people to receive their statements on the authority of an infallible Church, urged them to consult for themselves the sources of proof and also to prepare the way for the next point in the controversy, namely, that the sources of proof used were exclusively the Holy Scriptures.
Now, on the first inspection of Chrysostom's works, yousee that they were composed for people who had the Bible intheir hands. The great bulk of his work consists of reportsof his sermons ; and, as a general rule, these sermons are notof the kind of which we have so many excellent examples atthe present day : expositions of doctrine, or exhortations toholy living, with a Scripture text prefixed as a motto; butthey are systematic expositions of Scripture itself. Thepreacher takes a book of the Bible and goes regularly throughit, lecturing on it, verse by verse. Preaching of this kindwould evidently have no interest except for men who had theBible in their hands, and wished for a guide to enable themto understand it better. We have expositions of this kind inthe works of several of the most eminent Fathers, both Greekand Latin. But indeed, in the case of the Latin Fathers, werequire no elaborate proof that the Church then, so far fromdesiring to check the study of the Scriptures, placed them inthe hands of the people, and encouraged them to read them.The existence of the Latin translation, dating from an earlypart of the second century, is evidence enough of this fact. For whose benefit can we suppose that that translation wasmade? The knowledge of Greek was then the accomplishment of every educated Roman. It would have been far harderthen to find a Roman gentleman who did not understandGreek than it would be now to find an English gentlemanwho does not know either Latin or French. The Bible wastranslated into Latin, because the Latin Church, in those days,wished that not merely the wealthy, and the highly educated,but that all her members should have access to the oraclesof truth, and be able to consult them for themselves.
And now I proceed to my proof that the early Church didnot merely permit her people to verify her teaching by theScriptures did not merely make the Bible accessible tothem but urged its use on them as a duty which it wasinexcusable to neglect. One excuse, it may readily occur toyou, the people of that day had which Christians have notnow. Before printing was invented you would think that manuscripts must have been scarce and expensive, and the study of the Bible scarce practicable for ordinary Christians. But when you hear how Chrysostom deals with that excuse, you will find that, in this case, as in most others, demand produced supply, and that, in the ages when the Bible was valued, copies of it could be obtained without unreasonable sacrifice, and that it was only when the Scriptures ceased to be studied that manuscripts became scarce, and therefore costly.
Speaking of excuses for not reading the Bible, Chrysostom says* : 'There is another excuse employed by persons of this indolent frame of mind, which is utterly devoid of reason, namely, that they have not a Bible. Now, as far as the wealthy are concerned, it would be ridiculous to spend words on such a pretext. But, as I believe many of our poorer brethren 'are in the habit of using it, I should be glad to ask them this question, Have they not everyone got complete and perfect the tools of their respective trades ? Though hunger pinch them, though poverty afflict them, they will prefer to endure all hardships rather than part with any of the implements of their trade, and live by the sale of them. Many have chosen rather to borrow for the support of their families than give up the smallest of the tools of their trade. And very naturally; for they know that, if these be gone, their whole means of livelihood are lost. Now, just as the implements of their trade are the hammer or anvil or pincers, exactly so the implements of our profession are the books of the Apostles and prophets and all the Scriptures composed by Divine inspiration, and very full of profit. As with their implements they fashion whatever vessels they take in hands, so we with ours labour at our own souls, and correct what is injured, and repair what is worn out. Is it not a shame, then, if, when the tools of this world's trades are concerned, you make no excuse of poverty, but take care that no impediment shall interfere with your retaining them, here, where such unspeakable benefits are to be reaped, you whine aboutyour want of leisure and your poverty?
' But, at any rate,' he proceeds, ' the very poorest of you,if he attends to the continual reading of the Scriptures thattakes place here, need not be ignorant of anything that theScriptures contain. You will say this is impossible. If it is,I will tell you why it is impossible. It is because manyofyou do not attend to the reading that takes place here;you come here for form's sake, and then straightway gohome; and some who remain are not much the better thanthose who go away, being present with us only in the body,not in the spirit.
' But there is another reason which Roman Catholics givenow for keeping back the Scriptures from common use,namely, that they are too difficult for the unlearned tounderstand. You shall hear how St. Chrysostom dealt withthat excuse when his people tendered it as a reason whythey did not read the Bible.
' It is impossible for you to be alike ignorant of all ; for itwas for this reason that the grace of the Spirit appointedthat publicans and fishermen, tentmakers and shepherds andgoatherds, and unlearned and ignorant men, should composethese books, that none of the unlearned might be able tohave recourse to this excuse; that the words then spokenmight be intelligible to all ; that even the mechanic, and theservant, and the widow-woman, and the most unlearned of allmankind might receive profit and improvement from whatthey should hear. For it was not for vainglory, like theheathen, but for the salvation of the hearers, that theseauthors were counted worthy of the grace of the Spirit tocompose these writings. For the heathen philosophers, notseeking the common welfare, but their own glory, if everthey did say anything useful, concealed it, as it were, in adark mist. But the Apostles and prophets did quite thereverse; for what proceeded from them they set before allmen plain and clear, as being the common teachers of theworld, that each individual might be able, even of himself,to learn the sense of what they said from the mere reading.
'And who is there that does not understand plainly the whole of the Gospels? Who that hears "Blessed are the meek," "Blessed are the merciful," "Blessed are the pure in heart," and so forth, needs a teacher in order to comprehend any of those sayings ? And as for the accounts of miracles and wonderful works and historical facts, are they not plain and intelligible to any common person ? This is but pretext and excuse and a cloke for laziness.
' You do not understand the contents ; and how will you ever be able to understand them if you do not study them ? Take the book in your hands; read the entire history; and when you have secured a knowledge of what is simple, come to the obscure and hard parts over and over again. And if you cannot by constant reading make out what is said, go to some person wiser than yourself ; go to a teacher, communicate with him about the thing spoken of; show a strong interest in the matter; and if God see you displaying so much anxiety, He will not despise your watchfulness and earnestness ; but if no man teach you what you seek for, He Himself will surely reveal it.
' Remember the eunuch of the Queen of the Ethiopians, who, though a barbarian by birth, and pressed by innumerable cares, and surrounded on all sides by things to occupy his attention, aye, and unable, moreover, to understand what he was reading, was reading, nevertheless, as he sat in his chariot. And if he showed such diligence on the road, consider what he must have done when staying at home. If he could not endure to let the time of his journey pass without reading, how much more would he attend to it when sitting in his house? If, when he understood nothing of what he was reading, he still would not give up reading, much less would he after he had learned. For, in proof that he did not understand what he was reading, hear what Philip saith unto him: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" And he, upon hearing this, did not blush nor feel ashamed, but confessed his ignorance, and said : "How can I, unless some man should guide me ?" Since, then, when he had not a guide, he was occupied even so in reading, he therefore speedily met with one to take him by the hand. God saw his earnestness, accepted his diligence, and straightway sent him a teacher.
' But there is no Philip here now. Aye, but the Spirit that influenced Philip is here. Let us not trifle, beloved, with our salvation. All these things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Great is the security against sin which the reading of the Scriptures furnishes. Great is the precipice and deep the gulf that opens before ignorance of the Scriptures. It is downright abandonment of salvation to be ignorant of the Divine laws. It is this that has caused heresies : it is this that has led to profligate living : it is this that has turned things upside down; for it is impossible for anyone to comeoff without profit who constantly enjoys such reading with intelligence.'
I dare say that wfll strike you as good Protestant preachfng, and you will be curious to hear what Roman Catholic advocates have to say in reply. Well, what they answer is, that Chrysostom only recommends what they call the ascetic use of the Scriptures, or, as we should say, their use for practical edification and instruction of life. I readily grant that this was the object Chrysostom appears to have had primarily in view in most of the sermons I have quoted, and I will, into the bargain, throw in the concession that Chry- sostom would have been very sorry if his hearers had put any heretical meaning on what they read. But all this is beside the present question, namely, Were the Fathers of the ancient Church afraid of their laity reading the Bible, or did they not, on the contrary, recommend and urge them to read it ? Suppose the question was whether calomel ought to be prescribed in a certain disease, and that a doctor who thought its use highly dangerous was pressed with the example of some great authority who had always prescribed it. Suppose, after denying this for some time, he had prescription after prescription shown to him, in which calomel had been employed, what would you think of the answer, 'Oh, he only prescribed calomel for its purgative properties ; he did not intend the drug to operate in any other way?' Surely, it is common sense that, if you administer a drug, you cannot prevent it from exercising all its properties. If you let people read the Bible, you cannot prevent them from reflecting on what they read. Suppose, for an example, a Roman Catholic reads the Bible; how can you be sure that he will not take notice himself, or have it pointed out to him, that, whereas Pius IX. could not write a single Encyclical in which the name of the Virgin Mary did not occupy a prominent place, we have in the Bible twenty-one Apostolic letters, and her name does not occur in one of them? The Church of Rome has very good reason to discourage Bible reading by their people; for some of them are very likely to be struck by the fact that the system of the New Testament is very unlike that of Modern Romanism.* The ancient Church had no such fear. They never desired to teach anything that was not in the Bible; and so they were not afraid of the people discovering contradictions between the Bible and their teaching.
Now, I do not want any quotations I may read to you to mislead you into thinking that the Fathers of the fourth century were English Protestants of the nineteenth. I sup- pose there is not one of them to whose opinions on all points we should like to pledge ourselves. But such quotations as I have read show that they thoroughly agree with us on fundamental principles. Where they differ from us they differ as men do who, starting from the same principles, work them out in some respects differently. In such a case there is hope of agreement, if each revise carefully the process of deduction from the principles held in common. But our conclusions differ from those of the Church of Rome, because we start from different principles, and pursue a different method. The difference will be the subject of the next Lecture.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario