INTRIGUES AND INTERPRETATIONS.
One of the most conspicuous manifestations of the spirit now prevailing
among the leading nations, is that all of them are struggling to go
forward and not backward. Italy, in this respect, does not constitute
an exception to this general rule, as her present prominent position
in Europe abundantly testifies. Hence, every sensible man well knows
that the Government now existing there can not be overthrown, so that
the temporal power of the pope can be restored, except by another
revolution or by the military invasion of a foreign power. Which of
these remedies it is the purpose of the papacy to invoke can only be
conjectured. But since one or the other of them must, from necessity,
be in contemplation, it is essentially important that the true relation
which the dogma of papal infallibility bears to the temporal power
should be well understood, in order to see--what will be apparent to
any careful investigator--the impress of the Jesuits upon the papal
policy, and that, but for them, the Church would be left to the
enjoyment of its religious faith, without disturbance by any of the
nations.
The temporal power was always an enemy to the peace of the
Church--rending it into hostile factions--separating the Eastern from
the Western Christians, and introducing feuds and strifes and schisms
between popes and anti-popes, cardinals and clergy, and those who
followed them in their long and angry conflicts. Before this tremendous
power was usurped, and papal ambition was incited by the desire to
possess it, the Church of Rome embraced within its fold almost the
entire Christian world. Now, however, it finds itself representing
only a minority of those who profess Christianity.[277] All this, and
more than this, has been accomplished by restless and ambitious popes,
who, defying the example and all the admonitions, not only of Christ
himself, but of all the primitive Christians, entangled the Church in
vicious alliances with potentates and kings, in order that they might
wear crowns of temporal royalty themselves, and give increased strength
and vigor to the principles of monarchical government by keeping the
multitude in superstition, ignorance, and inferiority. And when, in
the present enlightened age, there is no excuse for not knowing the
wars, the bloodshed, the persecutions, and the misery, which followed
this unholy alliance between Church and State, in order to create and
preserve the temporal power of these usurping popes, he must have but
little regard for the welfare of the human race who would again afflict
any part of the civilized world with these or kindred calamities. The
Roman Catholic people of Italy have, of their own accord, removed them,
and those who are now seeking to reafflict them by alliances with
foreign and alien powers, make themselves disturbers of the world's
peace, by seeking to embroil other peoples and nations in dangerous
combinations for such a purpose.
It is not easy to overestimate the importance and seriousness of the
issue involved in the proposition' to restore the temporal power of
the pope--whether in its relations to Roman Catholic or Protestant
populations. In so far as the former are concerned, it involves
the conversion of their religious faith into the illiberality and
selfishness of Jesuitism; the sacrifice of the ancient faith of the
Church to the principles of a society which boasts that it has plucked
out of the hearts of its members every vestige of human sympathy and
affection, and has spent the whole period of its existence in sowing
seeds of strife and contention, and in so opposing the acknowledged
authority of the Church when employed to curb their worldly ambition,
that one of the best and most enlightened of the popes was constrained,
by a sense of duty to the Church and to the Christian world, not
merely to suppress them, but to declare, infallibly and _ex cathedra_,
that the suppression was forever. To Protestants it presents but
two alternatives, either to cast away all the rich fruits of the
Reformation, or to rebuke the attempt to encroach upon the rights the
people have acquired after centuries of conflict with monarchical and
arbitrary power. Both these propositions command the most serious and
thoughtful consideration, especially by citizens of the United States,
where the form of government is designed to conserve all religions, and
enable those who profess them--no matter how variant and conflicting
they may be--to live in amicable and peaceful relations with each
other. No intelligent mind can reflect upon the indisputable proofs of
history and the philosophy they teach, without realizing that, with
regard to this issue our own course is plain, clear, and unmistakable.
The ambitious popes--such as Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface
VIII, as well as others before and after them--acquired and maintained
their temporal power by a long series of coercive and oppressive
measures. In order to give these measures a religious sanction, they
usurped the functions which pertained to the claim of infallibility,
not only without the consent of the Church, but in face of the positive
rejection of that dogma by several Councils, and against the almost
unanimous sentiment of the multitude of Christians. The general polity
of the European nations, under the dominion of monarchical power as it
was united in Church and State, was favorable to them, as it kept the
people in ignorance of their natural rights, and too feeble to assert
them by revolution, if they had resorted to that remedy. Thus held in
subjection, their non-resistance was held to be acquiescence in their
own humility. Taking advantage of this, popes and other kings, as the
allies of each other, asserted their divine right to govern according
only to their own united will, and endeavored to establish the
infallibility of the pope as a dogma of religious faith, in order to
retain and increase their monarchical power. Thoughtful and intelligent
Roman Catholics denied and repudiated this doctrine, but were powerless
to relieve the multitude from the severity of this joint rule, because
the entire coercive power was in the hands of those whose ambition was
promoted by it, and who kept themselves in constant readiness to employ
it whensoever their interests, both spiritual and temporal, were placed
in jeopardy. If history does not prove all this, it proves nothing.
When the Reformation period began, and the popes and the clergy refused
the necessary reforms in the Church, those who supported that great
movement detached themselves, in large numbers, from the papal party,
but continued to assert their unfaltering fidelity to the primitive
Christian faith. The reigning authorities were thus confronted with
a disintegrating Church, occasioned by their own refusal to reform
acknowledged abuses--some of which were so flagrant as to furnish a
reason to the Jesuits for the recognition of their society. It was
not an easy matter to arrest this disintegration after the treatment
of Luther by Leo X, and the difficulties were increased by the
circumstances connected with the Council of Trent, as well as by the
proceedings of that body. There are many evidences of this. Prominent
among these is the fact that the popes were opposed to a General
Council, mainly because of the fear that it would refuse to affirm
their assumption of infallibility, which would necessarily tend to
weaken their hold upon temporal power. But for the Emperor Charles
V, it is not probable that a Council would have been then held. He
repeatedly urged upon the pope the necessity of convening one, but
without success. He was coquetting with the Lutheran Protestants in
Germany by means of his celebrated "_interim_" and otherwise, in
order to strengthen his armies by accessions from them. But, at the
same time, he cherished the hope that a Council would contrive some
method of inducing his Lutheran subjects to reunite with the Church,
from which they had been driven by the usurpations of the papacy and
the acknowledged vices of the clergy. His main purpose, however, was
to make the union between the Church and the State so indissoluble as
to maintain and perpetuate the monarchical principle as protection to
both. Finding the popes unyielding in their opposition to a General
Council, he ordered a national one to be held at Augsburg, in his
own dominions, to consider and decide upon such matters concerning
the Church as he deemed expedient. Clement VII was then pope, and
it required but little reflection to assure him that if the emperor
succeeded in holding a National Council in Germany, it would, with
almost positive certainty, reaffirm the decisions of the Councils of
Constance and Basel, rejecting the dogma of infallibility, and thus
inflict a dangerous and probably fatal wound upon the papacy. He
was completely checkmated by the emperor, and nothing was left him
but to call a General Council to supersede the National Council at
Augsburg. It was a game of statecraft between rival contestants for the
supremacy--neither having been restrained by any higher motives than
those which have their birth in personal ambition. As for the pope,
he preferred that the disintegration of the Church should continue
rather than run the risk of having his infallibility denied by a
General Council, and the possible loss of his temporal power which
that denial would have threatened. All this is sufficiently indicated
by the impediments thrown in the way of the meeting of the Council
by the popes. Clement VII died four years after making the call, but
without fixing the time for its assembling. His successor, Paul III,
was constrained to fix it for 1537, and to designate Mantua as the
place. But this did not exhaust all the expedients for delay. Mantua
was objected to for reasons not fully explained, and Vincenza was
substituted. The time was accordingly postponed one year, until 1538.
No meeting having then occurred, it was again fixed for 1542. Still,
however, in order to gain more time, it was transferred to Trent, where
it did not assemble until December 13, 1545--thirteen years after it
was first called by Clement VII. Its last session was held December 4,
1563--eighteen years after it first assembled, and thirty-one years
after it was first called--more than a generation of time!
During all these years the popes were striving after the surest method
of perpetuating their claim of infallibility as the means of preserving
their temporal power. While it is to be supposed that they, at the
same time, desired to save the Church from overthrow, they so blended
its cause with their own ambitious ends, that the Council, instead of
being reformatory, was unable to accomplish anything more than the
inauguration of a counter revolution to suppress the Reformation,
which, by that time, was becoming more formidable everyday. The pope,
Julius III, and Charles V had a common interest in keeping Church and
State united, in order to ward off successfully any blows that might be
aimed at the principle of absolute monarchism. But, apart from this,
the pope had a separate and distinct interest of his own, in trying
to secure, beyond the possibility of loss, the imperial rights and
prerogatives of the papacy. Embarrassed as he was, with the eyes of all
Europe centered upon him, he was compelled to look for support in every
direction, and found no contribution to the papal pretensions likely
to become more valuable than that offered by the Jesuits, who were
then in readiness, under the lead of Laynez, their general, to devote
themselves to whatsoever work should be necessary to extinguish the
spirit of revolt against the monarchism of Church and State.
Remembering the services rendered by Loyola to the cause of absolute
monarchy, and knowing that the central feature of the Jesuit
constitution was specially designed for the advancement of that cause,
the pope resolved to bring the united and compact body of Jesuits to
his aid, by enlisting them as an army to defend the tottering cause
of the papacy. The main object of Loyola during his life had been to
drive back the tide of the Reformation; and, although he had signally
failed in this, he exhibited such superior qualities as a general
and commander of men, and had so succeeded in imparting these same
qualities to Laynez, his successor, that the pope determined to send
the latter as one of his legates to the Council, clearly indicating
that he was both unwilling and afraid to trust the interests of the
papacy in the hands of those who, by the existing organization of
the Church, were intrusted with its administrative authority. He
undoubtedly considered that the most certain, if not the only method
of preserving the papacy, as distinct from the primitive Church,
would be the infusion of Jesuit spirit and courage into the ranks of
its defenders. We have heretofore seen how Laynez had succeeded at
the French Council of Poissy in restricting the right of discussion
to ecclesiastics alone, and it is fair to presume that the knowledge
of this dictatorial spirit commended him to the pope. At all events,
he was specially favored and distinguished as the representative of
the pope and the Jesuits at the same time--a union that had but a
single signification; that is, that the pope had accepted the Jesuits
as his allies in preference to any of the existing monastic orders,
because, as can not be doubted, the latter occupied the field of
religious labor, while the former considered religious professions
and practices as the stepping-stone to the acquisition of riches and
temporal power. Thus favored above any other member of the Council,
Laynez courageously entered into the contest between those who defended
and those who denied the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, and
exhibited his great ability in supporting to the utmost the extreme
claim to spiritual and temporal sovereignty which such popes as Gregory
VII, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, and others, now declared to have been
infallible, had for centuries maintained in defiance of the enlightened
sentiment of the whole Christian world. During the long and tedious
sessions of the Council, it had been getting farther and farther
away from such conclusions as would satisfy those who desired to see
the integrity of the Church maintained; and it was not until the time
for its closing sessions was approaching that Laynez announced the
Jesuit doctrine with regard to the infallibility of the pope, and the
authority and power it would confer upon the papacy. Although, contrary
to the expectations of the pope, he did not succeed in procuring the
affirmance of his doctrines by the Council--for if an effort had been
made to embody the pope's infallibility in the articles of faith, the
negative decisions of the Councils of Constance and Basel would have
been repeated--yet he did succeed in assuring the papacy that its
most formidable allies were the Jesuits, upon whom it could then and
always thereafter rely to fight its battles in behalf of that dogma,
as well as the temporal power, and whatsoever should become necessary
to give strength and permanency to the principle of monarchism in the
government of both Church and State. This having been accomplished,
together with as much infusion of Jesuitism into the Creed as could
then be safely ventured, the pope considered the papacy saved, at least
for the time being, and dissolved the Council.
If this Council had been promptly called and convened when demanded
by Charles V and the numerous body of Christians, much that has since
transpired to the injury of the Church might have been avoided. One
result would almost certainly have followed--the reaffirmance of the
doctrine of the Councils of Constance and Basel by a denial of the
pope's infallibility. What a multitude of evils would then have been
avoided by the Church! With the question of infallibility disposed
of by adhering to the ancient faith, which assigned it to popes and
Councils combined as the representatives of the universal Church,
composed of the whole body of Christians, the events then transpiring
in Europe indicate that the prevailing sentiment in favor of reform
would have been strong enough to check, if not to arrest, the progress
of Church disintegration. That accomplished, the question of temporal
power would have been left as a mere domestic one to be settled alone
by the Italian people; the ambition of the popes would have been no
longer tempted by the desire to acquire universal sovereignty over the
world; their meddling with the temporal affairs of the nations would
have been rebuked; harmony and concord might have prevailed among all
Christians, no matter what their differences of religious faith; all
controversy about freedom of conscience would, in all probability, have
ceased; the people of every nation would have been left to manage their
own affairs in their own way, and there would, doubtless, have been
ushered in such a period of general prosperity and contentment as it
has required Protestantism to introduce, in despite the resistance and
anathemas of the papacy, reigned over by disappointed popes.
But the doctrine of the pope's infallibility, as announced by Laynez in
the Council of Trent, deserves to be well scrutinized, in order that
its true and actual meaning may be comprehended. He who shall prosecute
the laborious research necessary for this, will not be surprised to
find that it required over three hundred years of controversy within
the Church before the papacy was enabled to create a sufficient number
of obedient and submissive prelates to approve the Jesuit teachings
of Laynez, as the Vatican Council of 1870 did by decreeing, not only
that the pope then reigning, Pius IX, was infallible, but that all the
other popes from the beginning--good, bad, and indifferent--were also
infallible! It will, however, excite no little astonishment when he
reflects that this was done in the nineteenth century, in the face of
the popular enlightenment now prevailing, and that such a period was
selected for this Jesuit and papal triumph over the Church--which is
neither more nor less than placing the future destiny of the Church
under Jesuit control, with the helm of the ship which bears its most
precious treasures guided by the followers of Loyola and Laynez and the
Jesuit generals who have succeeded them.
The language employed by Laynez in this celebrated Council--speaking
for the pope as his specially empowered legate--is not only
expressive, but will be startling to some who may now learn it for the
first time. It should be well scanned and considered by citizens of
the United States, especially by those Roman Catholics whose silent
acquiescence in what the papacy has been and is now doing, causes
them to be regarded as approving what, in their honest consciences,
vast numbers of them do not approve. On October 20, 1562--after the
Council had been in existence seventeen years without settling the
question whether bishops acted under Divine appointment or were the
mere passive creatures and instruments of the popes--Laynez addressed
the assemblage in a carefully-prepared and elaborate speech, which
the historian says occupied "more than two hours." The occasion was a
great one for him and the Jesuits--in the nature of a turning-point in
his and their history. It was the first time during the existence of
the Church when the voice of a Jesuit was heard in a General Council,
and the first time when the general of that society had been made
the special legate of the pope. It was also the first time when the
Church had openly turned its back upon the ancient monastic orders
by giving preference to a society expressly organized in antagonism
to them, for the avowed reason that they were unfitted by corruption
for rendering efficient service to the Church. Laynez was equal to
the occasion--his speech having been, as all agree, a grand display
of eminent ability. He pointed out the difference between the Church
and human Governments--the former having been built by Christ, and the
latter by human societies. Upon this premise he then developed the
papal and Jesuit theory by saying: "That while Christ lived in the
mortal flesh, he governed the Church with an _absolute monarchical
government_, and being about to depart out of this world, _he left the
same form_, appointing for his vicar St. Peter and his successors, to
administer it as he had done, giving him _full and total power and
jurisdiction, and subjecting the Church to him, as it was to himself_."
This was a bold announcement of the infallibility of the popes--of the
religious dogma that each one of them, in himself alone, possessed
the "full power and jurisdiction" of an absolute and irresponsible
monarch. This declaration extorted both praise and censure--the latter
especially from the Bishop of Paris, who denounced it as having
been invented, within fifty years before, in order that its author
might gain from the pope a cardinal's cap; thus showing how well and
distinctly it was understood that Laynez was the mouthpiece of the
pope, and was merely echoing his opinions. Notwithstanding this rebuke,
Laynez was not discomfited--for he well knew the potency of the power
behind him--but proceeded to establish the proposition that Peter, like
Christ, was an _absolute monarch_, by an argument which has ever since
answered the same end; that is, because Christ said to him: "Feed [that
is, _govern_] my sheep [_animals_, which have _no part or judgment in
governing themselves_.]" Then, insisting that Christ intended this
relation to subsist between the Church and "the Bishop of Rome, from
St. Peter to the end of the world," he also declared that Christ,
in addition, "gave him a privilege of _infallibility in judgment of
faith, manners, and religion_, binding all the Church to hear him, and
to stand firmly in that which should be determined by him." With the
view of expressing more distinctly this pre-eminence of the pope over
the universal Church he continued: "The Church can not err, _because
he can not_, and so he that is separated from him who is the head of
the Church, is separated also from the Church;" that is, none can
remain within its pale who do not accept as infallibly true what the
pope shall command with reference to faith, manners, and religion. And
in order to give completeness to the papal and Jesuit system he was
explaining, he humiliated the bishops by placing them, along with the
other "_animals_," at the feet of the pope. He insisted that as "the
apostles ordained bishops, not by Christ, but by St. Peter, receiving
jurisdiction from him alone," therefore their powers and functions were
conferred upon them, not by the divine law or will, but by the pope at
his own will and pleasure--thus making them his creatures, mere agents
to do his will, ready at all times to yield implicit and uninquiring
obedience to his commands, and bound to accept the will and law of God
as he shall instruct them.[278]
This palpable perversion of the words of Christ, which are of plain
and simple meaning, has been since so persisted in, that multitudes
who do not obey his command to "search the Scriptures" for themselves
have accepted the papal and Jesuit interpretation as infallibly true.
What he said--"_Feed my sheep_"--can not be tortured into the meaning
which that interpretation gives to the words. The English word "_feed_"
signifies only to supply or furnish with food for nourishment. In the
Latin Vulgate edition of the New Testament the words of Christ are thus
expressed: "_Pasce oves meas_." The word "_pasce_" signifies exactly
what the English word _feed_ does; so that the translation now accepted
by the most enlightened portion of the world is precisely accurate.
But Laynez, it will be seen, so perverted the word _pasce_, or _feed_,
as to make it mean "_govern_;" whereas, if the authors of the Vulgate
edition of the New Testament had intended to convey any such idea as
that, they would have employed either the word _guberno_, or _impero_,
or _dominor_, or _rego_, either of which means _govern_.[279] But he
was, manifestly, looking more anxiously after the interest of the
papacy and the welfare of his society than a correct interpretation
of Scripture. The principles of the Jesuit constitution were deeply
imbedded in his mind; and inasmuch as he was taught by these that the
multitude of mankind should be reduced to the degrading standard of
absolute obedience to superiors, his assumption that all the members
of the Church were "_animals_," without either the right or capacity
to govern themselves, and therefore completely subject to the mastery
of the pope, was a legitimate conclusion from his premise. What he
evidently designed to accomplish was to infuse into the doctrines of
the Church the fundamental and most distinguishing principle of the
Jesuit constitution--that which makes monarchism the chief corner-stone
in all spiritual and temporal government. He was the companion and
confidant of Loyola, and undoubtedly considered himself as executing
the purpose for which the society was established by him; that is, to
bring the Church, through and by means of the papacy, to the point of
casting off all the influences of the ancient monastic orders, and
relying alone upon the Jesuits for its main defense in its conflict
with Protestantism. In this he was serving the society as its general,
while as the legate of the pope he was serving the papacy--manifestly,
however, the first being his chief object. Considering only these ends,
he omitted to notice the important fact that Christ, when addressing
"a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered," had
instructed them to "search the Scriptures" for themselves, because
therein they would find those things which testify of him.[280]
The Council of Trent did not decree the infallibility of the pope,
and would have failed in the attempt to do so if it had been persisted
in, on account of the popular odium in which that doctrine was held
after the schisms brought on by the papacy had rendered it absolutely
necessary to the life of the Church that the Councils of Constance
and Basel should expressly deny and condemn it, by declaring that a
General Council, as the representative of the Church, was superior to a
pope. This was especially necessary with regard to the former of these
Councils, for the reason that the pontifical throne was then claimed
by Gregory XII, Benedict XIII, and John XXIII, so that no one knew who
the true pope was. But as John XXIII had possession of the office, he
was tried by the Council upon "fifty-five heads of accusation," and,
having been solemnly deposed, Martin V was elected in his stead, and
constitutes one in the line of papal succession.[281] In the face of
these well-known facts, however, the Council of Trent, under the artful
manipulations of Laynez, with the pope to back him, went as far as it
could in that direction, without arousing the popular indignation. The
legates of the pope--headed by Laynez--would willingly have passed a
decree of the pope's infallibility, yet there were a number of bishops
who were not prepared to accept the Jesuit theory, that instead of
deriving their jurisdiction and authority from the divine law, it was
derived solely from the pope. Besides, the representatives of the
monarchs and princes were unwilling to concede to the pope the temporal
authority which the doctrine of his individual infallibility was
intended to embody in his spiritual sovereignty; for it was easy to see
that, if admitted as part of the faith, they would hold their kingdoms
and authority at his pleasure.
Although no direct vote was taken in the Council of Trent by which
the advocates and opponents of infallibility could be numerically
determined, the whole proceedings prove that the foundation was there
laid, by its final action, for the ultimate triumph of the Jesuit
doctrine. Laynez did not win the complete victory he hoped for, but
obtained advantages of which his society continued to avail itself
for three hundred years, when their triumph became complete under the
pontificate of Pius IX. During that protracted period the fortunes
of the Jesuits were shifting--favored by some popes and opposed by
others--but during all these years the society clung, with the most
stubborn tenacity of purpose, to the teachings of Laynez, as announced
in the Council of Trent. Notwithstanding the members were held in
almost universal odium in all the enlightened nations, and the society
was tried, convicted of numerous public crimes, and suppressed by one
of the most distinguished of the popes, and found shelter from the
popular indignation under protection afforded them by the enemies of
the Roman Church, they at last succeeded in being re-established to
serve the "Allied Powers" in the defense and preservation of absolute
monarchism. Thus regaining a share of their lost influence under the
fostering care and patronage of the papacy, they ultimately became
enabled, only about two decades ago, to hold the pen and steady the
nerves of Pius IX when preparing the decree of his own infallibility
and that of all the popes "from St. Peter to the end of the world."
Nor were the popes themselves idle during these three centuries of
conflict between progress and retrogression, enlightenment and ignorant
superstition. Like skillful politicians, as many of them were, they
employed the appointing power confided to them by the Church to create
a large body of cardinals and bishops, who were held together, like an
army-corps, by solemn oaths of fidelity to the papacy. The march of
this ecclesiastical army was slow from necessity, because those who
had been supposed to be mere "animals," were gradually brought within
the light of the Reformation. But it was steady, nevertheless, for the
reason that the stake played for was great, and the courage imparted
by the Jesuits was stimulating. At last the forces were sufficiently
consolidated, and the cardinals and bishops sufficiently submissive,
to hazard the fortunes of the papacy upon a single cast of the die.
Accordingly, the Vatican Council of 1870 was brought to the point of
decreeing the infallibility of all the popes as the last resort, in
order, if possible, to drive back the waves of the Italian Revolution,
and rescue the temporal power of the papacy from impending destruction,
and make its future secure by engrafting a repudiated Jesuit dogma upon
the settled and recognized faith of the Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 277: In Bartholomew's late "Atlas of the World," the
professing Christians are thus given:
Roman Catholics 175,000,000
Protestants 110,000,000
Greek Church 90,000,000
Other Christian sects 20,000,000
----------
Total Christians 395,000,000]
[Footnote 278: History of the Council of Trent. By Sarpi. London
edition. 1676. Pages 571-573.]
[Footnote 279: Laynez so far succeeded in influencing the papacy by
his method of interpreting Scripture, that both the Douay or Roman
Catholic Bible and the Rheims Version of the New Testament contain
an explanatory note whereby the papal meaning of the words "_Feed
my sheep_" is given as infallibly true. It is there said that by
these words Christ conferred upon Peter "the _superintendency_ of
all his sheep, and consequently of his whole flock; that is, of his
whole Church." This does not go quite to the extent that Laynez did,
by converting the word _feed_ into _govern_, but so nearly so as
to make a distinction almost without a difference. The Latin word
"_pasce_" does not mean either to govern or to superintend--nor does
the Greek word bὁσκε, but simply to feed. If Christ had intended to
say to govern or superintend, he would have employed a word having
that signification, which in the Vulgate would be either _curatio_
or _procuratio_. He meant, therefore, spiritual food only--advice,
counsel, instruction--excluding entirely the idea of either governing
or superintending the opinions or consciences of any of the flock.]
[Footnote 280: John v, 39: "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye
think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me."
The words of the Latin Vulgate are, "_Scrutamini Scripturas_," and
of the Greek, "Ερευυἁτε τἁϛ γραφἁϛ." Each means something more than
"_search_ the Scriptures"--that is, examine diligently, scrutinize--and
the language is that of command. In order to change it into the
mere statement of a fact, the Douay or Roman Catholic Version, and
the Rhemish Version--which latter has the "imprimatur" or special
preference of Archbishop Hughes, of New York, in 1869, and was printed
under his direct auspices by the "Catholic Publication Society" of
that city--each contains an explanatory note as follows: "_Or, you
search the Scriptures_;" that is, that Christ merely announced to
those present that they did so. This was manifestly done in order to
base upon it the admonition which immediately follows: "'T is not a
command for _all_ to search the Scriptures, but a reproach to the
Pharisees" for not receiving him of whom the Scriptures testified. This
perverts the plain meaning; for at that time Christ did not mention
the Pharisees, nor did he afterwards do so until he was teaching in
the temple. And it was accomplished by adding the word "_or_" to make
the note of equivalent meaning with the text, and the word "_you_," so
as to make it appear that what Christ said was intended for only those
he then addressed, and not for all mankind; whereas he undoubtedly
intended the latter, so that each individual shall understand what they
testify of him. The command is general, because the object is to edify
and purify the conscience, and if he meant that others should search
them for us and we accept as infallibly true their interpretation of
the testimony, the effect would be to weaken, if not destroy, our own
sense of personal responsibility. Christ could not have meant this,
with reference to matters which concern the eternal welfare of the
soul.]
[Footnote 281: De Montor, Vol. I, pp. 566-573.]