this, and none on which their practice exhibited a more eloquent
commentary. Hear what the Apostle of the Gentiles asserts in defence of
the spiritual liberty of the least enlightened members of the Church,
who were, as he believed, in error respecting some modes of practice
which were very important at that time. 'Him that is weak in the faith,
receive ye; but not for doubtful disputings. One believeth that he may
eat all things; but another who is weak eateth herbs only. Let not him
that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not
judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that
judgest the servant of another? To his own master he standeth or
falleth. But he shall be established, for God is able to establish him.
It is written, 'As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall
give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another
any more.' (Romans xiv.) This was the rule which the Apostle observed in
all his transactions with the infant churches which referred their
spiritual concerns to him, as their father and guardian in the faith. He
denounced guilt, expounded the faith, guarded against error, and used
every method of argument, persuasion, and entreaty, with which his head
and heart could furnish him to establish them in righteousness; he set
before them every motive of hope and fear, and faithfully declared the
whole counsel of God, as bound by his office, and privileged by his
unequalled qualifications; but he throughout abstained from
intermeddling with any man's conscience, not only by direct
interference, but by indirect influence. Let us see how scrupulous was
his regard to liberty of conscience. 'I know and am persuaded by the
Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. All things
indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It
is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which
thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith?
Have it to thyself before God.' (Romans xiv.) A yet more eminent example
is on record, whose conduct bears a reference to a case of still more
awful responsibility than that instanced by the Apostle. 'If any man
hear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge
the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth
not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of
myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I
should say and what I should speak. (John xii. 47-49.) How, in the face
of these declarations, can men impeach the faith and pronounce sentence
on the practice of their brethren, assuming their own judgments as the
standard of truth, and their own conceptions as the measure of holiness?
How, in the face of these declarations, can ministers of the Gospel have
ever grasped, as a right, the power which Christ himself disclaimed; not
leaving judgment till the last day, but delivering over to reproach and
death those who were 'weak in the faith,' or perplexed with 'doubtful
disputations'? How, in the face of these declarations, can priests of
any church have denied that to his own master every man stands or falls,
and have made close inquisition into the secrets of the soul, pretending
to understand its errors, and presumptuously undertaking to cleanse its
secret faults by methods which no voice from above has sanctioned as
lawful, and no sign from on high has shown to be efficacious? Could such
inquisitors and such priests (and they are to be found in every Church)
have mingled with the followers of Jesus, they would have cried out for
fire from heaven on the Samaritans, notwithstanding every prohibition;
they would have questioned the sinful Mary, not satisfied with her
loving much, till they had ascertained how much; they would have
pronounced the young lawyer very far from the kingdom of God unless he
could have made a fuller profession of faith; and, meeting the
adulteress in the outer courts of the temple as she left the mild
presence of Jesus, would have prescribed her penance with a rigor well
pleasing to the accusers, who were themselves too modest to cast the
first stone. Since Jesus, who knew what was in the hearts of those
around him, forbore to condemn, much more ought they to forbear who have
no such knowledge. If he awarded no punishment to those who rejected the
Gospel he understood so well, much less should they who are themselves
but learners inflict pain of body or mind on their fellow-disciples who
understand differently, or the unbelievers who cannot understand at all.
If he who spake as his Father commanded him left it to the Father to
enforce these commands, it ill becomes those on whom the Spirit has not
descended to assume an authority which inspiration itself could not
sanction. It becomes them to learn what they themselves are, before they
judge how little their brethren are what they ought to be. It becomes
them to ascertain their own superiority over the Apostles, before they
claim an authority with which no Apostle ever believed himself to be
invested; and which, if he had so imagined, he would have prayed for
permission to resign. Far less perilous, far less burdensome would be a
commission from on high to guide the seasons, to dispense showers and
sunshine, and regulate the produce of the fields, than to control the
spiritual movements, and administer the fertilizing influences under
which the fruits of holiness are to spring up unto everlasting life.
That any such commission was ever given, is as true in the one case as
in the other; and the belief of any individual that to himself it was
ever confided, is a proof of unsoundness in heart or brain. To any man
it is honor enough, as it was to Paul and Apollos, to plant and to
water. To God alone it belongs to give and to measure the increase.
We therefore disapprove of the practice of confession as adopted by
Catholics, for one reason among many, that it infringes liberty of
conscience, by making man practically accountable to man, and
countenancing an assumption of that power to judge and punish which
belongs to God alone. The punishments of canonical penances are, it is
true, of human institution; but they are awarded to spiritual guilt, of
which no one has a right to take cognizance but God. We therefore deny
the right of any man to impose penances, or, in consequence, to issue
indulgences; and we hold that wherever such a right is claimed, the
prerogative of God is invaded and the cause of his Gospel injured.
Christian liberty secures to every man the right, not only of reading
the sacred records for himself, but of interpreting them for himself; of
ascertaining by his own unbiased judgment what they teach, and of
holding the opinions thus formed without being accountable to any man or
to any body of men. In advocating the free perusal of the Scriptures and
the formation of individual opinions from them, we shall be careful to
avoid any bias from the popular and false impression, that the faithful
pastors of the Catholic Church would prohibit their flocks from reading
the Bible: and we shall enter on no discussion respecting the
comparative fidelity of Catholic and Protestant English translations of
the Scriptures. On the latter point, much must be said, if anything; so
much, that no room would be left us for matters of greater importance.
Important as it is that the sacred books should be faithfully rendered,
that it should be shown how long-prevalent errors, supposed to be
countenanced by them, are not so countenanced; important as it is, for
instance, to decide whether the sacred teacher said 'Repent,' or 'Do
penance,' it is yet more important to develop the principles to which
all modes of expression are subservient: to attend to the spirit rather
than the letter, to establish truths and explode errors to the
perception of which every intellect is adequate, than to debate matters
to which, though of inferior moment, peculiar qualifications are
requisite.
We willingly accept the following testimony of Fenelon to the fact of
the unrestricted use of the sacred writings in the early times of
Christianity; though we dissent from the concluding remark. The passage
is translated from a letter from Fenelon to the Bishop of Arras.
(_Oeuvres Spirituels de Fenelon_, 8vo. tom. 4, p. 241.) 'I think that
much trouble has been taken in our times very unnecessarily, to prove
what is incontestable, than in the first ages of the Church the laity
read the Holy Scriptures. It is clear as daylight, that all people read
the Bible and service in their native languages; that as a part of good
education, children were made to read them; that in their sermons, the
ministers of the Church regularly explained to their flocks whole books
of the sacred volume; that the sacred text of the Scriptures was very
familiar to the people; that the clergy exhorted the people to read
them; that the clergy blamed the people for not reading them, and
considered the neglect of the perusal of them as a source of heresy and
immorality. But in all this the Church used a wise economy; adapting the
general practice to the circumstances and wants of individuals. It did
not, however, think that a person could not be a Christian, or not be
well instructed in his religion, without perusing the sacred writings.
Whole countries of barbarians, innumerable multitudes of the faithful
were rich (to use the words of St. Paul) in words and science, though
they had not read the sacred writings. To listen to the pastors of the
Church who explain the Scriptures to the faithful and distribute among
them such parts as are suited to their wants, is to read the
Scriptures.'
This last proposition is in perfect accordance with the creed which
declares that 'to the holy Mother Church it belongs to judge of the true
sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,' but inconsistent with
the principle held by us, that no man has the power of judging for
another or the right to prescribe the opinions of another. 'What then is
to be done,' it is asked, 'with those who cannot read for themselves?'
They must take what they can obtain from their pastors, or from any
other medium of communication. If the medium be as faithful as human
fallibility allows, much truth may be learned and the means of holiness
may be abundantly afforded: but yet the learner is precluded by his
ignorance from the full enjoyment of his Christian liberty; and to hang
on the lips of his instructor is far, very far from being the same thing
as reading the Scriptures for himself.
Such a 'wise economy' as Fenelon speaks of seems to us but a fleshly
wisdom, a narrow policy originated by men, discountenanced by God, and
available to perpetuate, not the Gospel itself, but the corruptions
which were early mixed with it, and which will not stand the test of
examination. Who was to decide what 'parts were suited to their wants?'
Who knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in
him? Who gave the power of prohibition to read the Scriptures over such
as 'were not disposed to read them to their advantage?' Who was to
judge of the disposition; who could discern the tendency of inquiry; who
could estimate the advantage and disadvantage of the results? How dared
the Church to 'withhold from the laity the perusal of the Bible without
permission of their pastors,' from the assumption that it was 'unsafe to
allow the people at large to read the sacred text?' How unsafe? For the
Gospel itself? The Divine care would have provided a preventive or a
remedy, if the danger had been real. For the honor of God? He would have
made provision for its vindication. For the spiritual welfare of the
people? It could not have been injured by the free use of the means
ordained to perfect it: nor was it ever the province of pastors to
promote that welfare by other means than the Gospel authorizes. And
where is the patent for the monopoly of the Scriptures to be found? But
it is alleged that there are many passages in the sacred volume which,
being hard to be understood, are wrested by the unstable and the
ignorant to the destruction of the purity of their faith. True. But the
case was the same in the days of the Apostles; and did Peter ever desire
that Paul's writings should therefore be kept back from the unlearned
and unstable? Or did he enjoin an explanation of them from the wise, to
which the foolish should be required to assent? No; he recommended
caution in giving heed to other men's errors, and growth in the
knowledge of Christ Jesus; both which must be better promoted by
independent thought and judgment than by subservience to any mind,
however pure and enlightened. Christ himself, though he knew what was in
man, never required this subservience from any one of his followers. He
gave his instructions in as many different forms as we have them in now:
in discourses, in parables, in familiar dialogue, and by actions; and
invariably he left to the hearers the application of the principles thus
conveyed, except when pressed by his immediate followers for an
interpretation. He took no pains to preserve his Gospel from 'the rash
criticisms of the vulgar,' as the piety of Fenelon erroneously advises.
He did not act upon the belief that previous instruction was necessary
to the comprehension of the word of life, or that 'the people should be
full of the spirit of the Gospel before they are entrusted with the
letter.' The letter of the Gospel now is the same as the letter of the
Gospel then; the spirit now, as then, is only to be got at through the
letter; and the letter now, as then, is only valuable as it communicates
the spirit. Christ did not think that 'it should only be permitted to
the simple, the docile, and the humble; to those who wish to nourish
themselves with its divine truths in silence; and withheld from those
who merely seek to satisfy their curiosity, to dispute, to dogmatize, to
criticize.' This doctrine of Fenelon is, we are told, and ever has been,
the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Were the disciples to whom
Christ spoke of the bread of life and who therefore forsook him, 'docile
and humble?' Yet what saying was more 'hard to be understood?' When he
declared the nature of his Gospel, and the authority under which he
proposed it, were the Pharisees in the temple 'simple and docile?' Was
there no disposition 'to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize' among the
elders, the scribes, the Sadducees whom he referred to his works,
assured of the temporary nature of the Jewish covenant, and besought to
listen to the truth which should make them free? The glad tidings of
salvation were then preached, as they ought to be now, to the poor and
ignorant without fear that what is truly the Gospel can be dangerously
misapprehended, and without intimation that the faith needs the
interpretation of fallible understandings, or the guardianship of human
wisdom.
If we believed (which we do not) that error in matters of faith could of
itself endanger salvation,--_i. e._ exclude from the happiness of a
future state,--we should be convinced that those were much more liable
to error who adopted the faith after it had passed through a fallible
mind, than those who received it from Christ himself, speaking directly,
as in fact he does, in the faithful records which the Bible presents.
And the more feeble and ignorant the recipient mind, the more liable
will it be to admit the errors of others, as well as to originate some
of its own. While, if referred to the sacred volume itself for his
faith, a man is in danger of entertaining no errors but his own. However
imperfect his mental vision may be, he is thus more likely to behold the
object in its true form and colors, than by the interposition of a
faulty medium. If it be objected that the medium, so far from being
faulty, corrects the imperfections of the natural faculty, we ask for
the test of its possessing this quality, and for the proof that it was
ever conferred.
But, being convinced, for reasons given before, that the possession of
the true faith is not an indispensable requisite for future happiness,
and that the non-possession of it is not to be followed by eternal
misery, or by any arbitrary infliction whatever, we cannot admit the
plea of care for the souls of men as any reason or excuse for trenching
on the natural liberty of the mind, or prescribing opinions which Christ
himself only administered the means of forming, and which his Apostles
presumed not to impose. Purity of faith is the most exalted attainment
of the most exalted mind,--the richest of the myriads of rich blessings
which the Father of our spirits has placed within our reach. It should
be sought as the most precious of all treasures; it should be guarded as
the most sacred of all trusts: but though it may be won by any, it can
be communicated by none. It is the especial reward of individual search,
and loses its very nature by being transferred: for that which is truth
to a man who has discovered it for himself, can be truth to another man
only so far as his faculties are exercised upon it, apprehend, and adopt
it. This, which may be justly said of all truth, may be especially
declared of religious truth, which is of no value unless made a
vivifying principle, and can never become a vivifying principle unless
perceived by the understanding and recognized by the heart.
The true office of the pastors of the Church (and likewise of all
believers) is to lead others to that knowledge of the truth which can
never be imposed. Their concern for the spiritual welfare of their
brethren can never be too earnest; their diligence in guidance and
guardianship, too eager; their value for purity of faith, too high; or
their apprehension of spiritual danger, too ready or too ardent. But all
this concern and apprehension should be justly directed, and this
guidance and guardianship exercised with a regard to the rights with
which God has invested every man. The first object to be desired is
spiritual advancement, to which intellectual rectitude is subsidiary.
The first object of dread is moral corruption, and not mental error. The
guidance to be exercised is that of an experienced over an inexperienced
person. The one points out to the other the snares and dangers into
which he is liable to fall, the labyrinth in which he may lose himself,
and the various tendencies of different paths; but he has no lawful
power to insist upon a particular path being pursued, or to condemn his
companion to destruction for interpreting differently the invitation on
which they both proceed. The guardianship is faithful as long as it
consists in warning off the attacks of temptation, declaring the threats
and promises of the Gospel, and educating for independent action; but it
becomes tyranny when restraints are imposed on the exercise of the
faculties, and any impediments are thrown in the way of a free range
through the spiritual world of which God has made every man an
inhabitant. It is the office of Christian pastors to study the sacred
records with all diligence, striving to ascertain by the help of
learning and philosophy, and every other help, what the true faith is,
and how other minds may be best disposed for its apprehension; to place
before those minds whatever may best tend to enlighten, convince, and
establish them; to excite them to activity and stimulate them to further
action when aroused. But further than this they must not go. The mind
must work out the results for itself; and for those results none but
itself can be answerable. Its safety or peril rests with God, who hath
given into no man's hand the souls of his brethren.
It is justly observed by Catholics, that many of the very persons who
complain of the discouragement by them thrown in the way of the general
perusal of the Scriptures, circulate the Book of Common Prayer of the
Church of England 'as a safeguard against the misinterpretation of the
Bible,' and by their doubt and dread of the consequences of making the
Bible common, seem to admit the probability and danger of such
misinterpretation. It is very true that such inconsistencies obtain
among Protestants, and such inconsistencies will exist as long as there
is any dread of carrying out a good principle to its full extent. If all
Protestants adhered to the grand principle of the Reformation, that the
Bible alone is the religion of Protestants, there would not only be no
damnatory clauses in their creeds, but no creeds,--no embodying in an
unchanging form of words principles which were given in no such form,
which cannot be received under the same aspect by minds differently
prepared, and which are too expansive in their nature to be long
confined within arbitrary limits of human imposition. The Church of
England forsakes its fundamental principle of dissent from the Roman
Catholic Church when it would secure uniformity of faith by framing
articles of faith, by keeping back the Bible from the feeblest
intellect, or appointing 'a safeguard,' or interfering in any way
between the Bible and the minds which are to derive their religion from
it. If uniformity of faith cannot be thus obtained, it is a necessary
consequence of the Protestant principle that uniformity of faith is not
necessary to salvation. This consequence, which we fully admit, the
Church of England, in the letter and spirit of her articles and creeds,
inconsistently denies.
It is manifestly absurd to exhort a man to derive his faith from the
Bible, if it is declared to him beforehand what he is bound at his
eternal peril to believe. Yet this is in fact done, when the Book of
Common Prayer is circulated as a safeguard to the Bible, and also when a
Catholic is made to declare on his admission to the Church, 'I also
admit the Sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy Mother
Church has held and does hold,' &c. For purposes of faith, all use in
reading the Bible is over when this declaration is made. The disciple
can only, while striving to learn his duty from the sacred pages, wonder
at what he finds there;--at the appeals to individual judgment; at the
addresses to the intimate consciousness of every man; at the freedom
allowed and encouraged among the first Christians; at the absence of all
pretension to authority in matters of opinion, of all wish to prescribe,
of all tendency to domineer. If he be intelligent, it will occur to him
as surprising that no creed, if creeds be good things, was given by our
Saviour to his Apostles before he left them, weak and divided in the
faith as they at that time were. And again, when they were strong and
united, but when doubt and disagreement were creeping into their
churches, it must seem strange that Christ, who manifestly watched over
the interests of his Church, should not have authorized and communicated
a profession of faith more ample and particular than that which had
hitherto accompanied baptism; viz. that Jesus was the Christ, and that
remission of sins came by repentance.
Finding no trace of the Apostles' Creed among all the sacred books, he
will inquire into its origin, and discover that it was not composed by
the Apostles,[A] and that when, in an evil hour, it was proposed for
general adoption, its main purpose was to exclude the Gnostics, who
would have mixed up their false philosophy and vain deceits with the
simple faith in Christ which then, as now, constituted a man a
Christian. Having gone thus far, the disciple begins to doubt whether he
has hitherto possessed and exercised the spiritual liberty which is his
birthright. If he pursue the inquiry he will, undoubtedly cast off the
restraints which man's wisdom has imposed on his faculties, and
interpret, judge, and believe for himself. If he look back to his
promise to admit the sense of Scripture only as the Church declares it,
and renews that promise, he must lay aside every hope of purifying and
strengthening his faith by his scriptural studies. Henceforth it will
indeed be, as Fenelon declares, the same thing to him to read the words
of Christ, and to hear an explanation of them from his pastor. Not for
this were the Beraeans cited as an example by Paul; not by these means
was Timothy prepared for his extensive labors; not thus did Apollos
learn how to apply his vigorous talents to the service of the infant
churches. All these men searched the Scriptures, knew the Scriptures
from their youth up, were learned in the Scriptures, from which they
ascertained for themselves the promise of Christ's coming, and
themselves applied the tests which proved that Jesus of Nazareth was
this Christ.
[Footnote A: See Lord King's 'Critical History of the Apostles' Creed.']