It is impossible to give the slightest attention to the Word of God
without perceiving the vast importance attached to the reception of
Christian truth; and it is equally impossible to avoid the conviction
that it is declared in Scripture to be there revealed decisively. It is
the plain doctrine of the Word of God that there is one way, one truth,
and one life, and that we are responsible for its rejection or reception.
Now, just in proportion as a man feels the pressure of a surrounding
religious atmosphere, does he feel the weight attaching to this
responsibility; and the more anxious does he naturally become to have his
mind settled and his doubts satisfied. It is true that the humble
believer, being led by the Spirit, quickly finds an happy assurance in
the simple statements of the Bible; but there are many, like Noah’s dove,
who can find amidst the troubled waters of the world no resting-place for
their soul. Many shrink from the labour of investigation, and many more
from the responsibility of decision. The truth is not arranged in a
system of dogmatical statements, but lies embodied in every portion of
the book, from whence it arises that men must search for it as for hid
treasure; a duty in direct opposition to the natural indolence of our
nature. But, still more, faith requires conviction and
decision—qualifications yet more opposed to the wavering and vacillating
tendencies of man. You see many men in life who appear to have no power
to take a consistent course alone. If they are led they will follow,
and, perhaps, will follow well; but they do not appear to have the mental
faculty of decision. Indeed, this power of decision is the
characteristic of great men. They are not always either wiser or better
than those they lead, but they have this faculty, that they are
thoroughly persuaded in their own mind, and are capable of full and
unwavering conviction of any truth which they are led to embrace. Such
persons are sure to have a cluster of dependent minds around them, and
others of superior ability are glad to lean on their superior decision.
The fact is, that man is a parasitic plant, and he must lean on
something. Now see the influence of such a fact on our connexion with
Divine truth. A thoughtful mind at once discovers that the reception of
truth is of the utmost importance to his soul, and at the same time his
conscience assures him that he is but partially acquainted either with
its evidence or its statements. What, then, is the result? He begins to
lean on the judgment of those whom he considers better informed, and to
pin his faith on other men. Thus there are thousands and tens of
thousands who abhor the name of Rome, who are depending wholly on the
judgment of others in religion. This is always the danger in those
congregations where there is a beloved and gifted minister. It is the
case also amongst those whom you would suppose to be at the antipodes of
Popery, viz., those who boast that they are peculiarly men of reason in
their faith. A friend of mine was conversing the other day with an
Unitarian, and proving to him the clear doctrine of the eternal divinity
of the Saviour. The man could make no reply to the clear proofs adduced
from Scripture, till at length, when completely baffled, he said, “I
cannot explain those texts myself, but my minister can.” Could you have
a stronger proof that it is the tendency of human nature, even when it
boasts its own reason, to lean on other men for truth? Now, from this
tendency has arisen the whole system of Romish infallibility. Anxious
minds felt the necessity of leaning upon something. Had they leaned on
Scripture they would have been at peace; but, in default of that, they
required some human judgment. The first and most natural process was to
lean on individuals, and, accordingly, most heresies bear the names of
their first leaders. But this fails in giving peace, for individuals
differ, and the authority of the individual is too often weakened by his
faults and errors. Hence it follows, that these leaning minds are often
involved in perplexity of the most painful character. Not having the one
anchor, they are driven about by every wind that bloweth. Was there ever
a system more beautifully adapted to such a case than that which steps in
to the chamber of doubt, and says, “Be still, it is not your business to
decide at all: it is for you, as a humble believer, to believe what the
Church believes?” All responsibility is thus taken off the conscience,
and thrown on an ideal object, the Church; the indolence of human nature
is at once satisfied, for investigation is represented as a sin; and even
the piety of the heart is called into exercise, for blind reliance is
honoured by the hallowed name of faith. The whole weight of perplexity
is thrown off beyond the reach of investigation, and by that one stroke a
false relief is given. There are a thousand questions which ought to be
answered before the leap is taken. What is the Catholic Church? Where
is the proof of its infallibility? What does it teach? and is the
teaching scriptural? But these it is said to be a sin to ask. At one
stroke the responsibility is transferred, and the anxious mind finds what
it terms “rest in the Church.” Hence men often begin with anxious
interest, advance as a second step to perplexity, and then, at length,
abandon inquiry in a blind reliance on what they are told is the teaching
of the Church. One of the late perverts to Rome said, when a gentleman
quoted to her the Word of God, “I thank God I am not called to perplex
myself any more with the perplexities of Scripture. I have placed the
interests of my soul in safe keeping, and shall not suffer myself again
to be disturbed.” She had plainly felt perplexity, and she had found a
false peace in throwing off her personal responsibility. So there is
mention made in “Milner’s End of Controversy,” of one Anthony Ulric, Duke
of Brunswick, who, having commenced a search for true religion, ended in
writing a book entitled his “Fifty Reasons for preferring the Roman
Catholic Religion,” in which he says, “The Catholics to whom I spoke
concerning my conversion, assured me, that if I were to be damned for
embracing the Catholic faith, they were ready to answer for me at the day
of judgment, and to take my damnation upon themselves.” As he could find
no Protestants who were willing to undertake a similar responsibility, he
decided on joining the Church of Rome:—showing again how a state of
perplexity leads on to a blind transfer of personal responsibility to
others.
It is not our business to-night to shew the utter fallacy of all such
blind reliance, or to point out how widely it differs from the faith with
which it is confounded; how infinitely more difficult it is to discover
what the Church teaches than what the Bible does; or how such persons
receive without investigation a monstrous dogma opposed to every
evidence, viz., the pretended infallibility of the Church on which they
lean. My one desire has been to show that such a system is a natural
accommodation of the doctrine of revelation to the wants and waverings of
the natural man.