SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH
CHAPTER SIX
THE great religions of the world appeal to sacred writings
for their sanction. But the religion of Christendom differs in this respect
from the religions of the East, that its pretended appeal to Scripture is but a
juggler's trick. It claims our acceptance of doctrines which none but the
credulous would believe on mere human testimony; and when we demand to know
when and where has God revealed them, the answer given us is that "He has
founded a Church, and in and through the Church He speaks to us." When we seek
authority for this we are referred back to Holy Scripture; but when in turn we
claim to be allowed access to Scripture, human tradition is foisted upon us
instead. This sort of thing is well known in another sphere: "ringing the
changes," I again repeat, is what the vulgar call it!
How different, this,
from the attitude and language of the great men who, in the sixteenth century,
sought to free England from the toil and tricks of priestcraft. Here are their
words:-
"It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is
contrary to God's Word written; neither may it expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and
a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the
same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for
necessity of salvation."(Art.20)
This was precisely the question at
issue in the sixteenth century. Obviously so; for the Reformation was
essentially a revolt against the pretensions of "the Church," and an appeal to
the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. Different sorts of men of course were
moved by different motives. With the devout, the ruling influence was love of
truth: with others, it was detestation of the Church's immoralities and
tyrannies. As for Henry VIII, he cared little for either piety or morals. What
he wanted was to be master in his own realm. Roman Catholics seek to discredit
the movement in England by representing Henry as its leader. But they are on
dangerous ground. They forget that it was from the Pope that Henry obtained the
title of "Defender of the Faith." Immorality and hypocrisy were no bar to Papal
favour. Let them paint the King as black as they can, and brand him as
hypocrite and scoundrel, the fact remains that he was no worse than the man who
then sat in "the chair of St. Peter." The vices of Henry VIII. were of a kind
that the Church habitually condoned. But what shall be said of Paul III.? This
"Vicar of Christ on earth," so far from being ashamed of his immoralities,
flaunted them in the face of the world. The Duchies of Parma and Piacenza he
conferred upon his illegitimate son Lewis, and he made provision for two of his
schoolboy grandsons, by appointing them Cardinals. These things need to be
remembered in these days when the salaried servants of the Church of the
Reformation are trying to undermine the work of the Reformation.
Nothing is
more unfair in controversy than to state in our own words the tenets of others
from whom we differ. And to many the discussion of principles, apart from the
men who champion them, seems too academic to be interesting. Let us then select
an exponent of the views it is here desired to challenge. Dr. Gore, now Bishop
of Birmingham, who was Dr. Pusey's immediate successor, as head of the House
which bears his name, will serve the purpose admirably. All the more so because
of his high personal character and his Christian spirit. His personal
contribution to Lux Mundi gave prominent expression to certain of the errors
here assailed, and The Ministry of the Christian Church was written in
defence of them.
"How irrational it is," he says, "considering the intimate
links by which the New Testament canon is bound up with the historic Church,
not to accept the mind of that Church as interpreting the mind of the apostolic
writers." The logic of this is charming. Let us test it by a parallel case.
"How irrational it is, considering the intimate links by which the Old
Testament canon is bound up with the Jews (and they, moreover, were the
divinely appointed custodians of them), not to accept the mind of the Jews as
interpreting the Messianic prophecies." The glaring fallacy of this argument
lies in confounding questions of fact with interpretations of doctrine. The
question of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament is of the same
character as issues of fact such as are dealt with every day in our courts of
justice. We owe our obligations to the historic Church in early times for
settling and preserving the sacred canon. But this does not blind us to the
fact that the hatred of the Scriptures which it displayed in later times was
the natural fruit of the false teaching of the Fathers.
But the statement
above cited calls for further criticism. First, it raises the whole question
whether we possess a Divine revelation at all. Secondly, the question again
presents itself, What is the Church? The argument assumes that it means the
clergy - a figment which no one accepts who has not already given up his Bible.
And, thirdly, waiving that point, how is the mind of the Church to be
ascertained? If by the decrees of Councils, then we are met by the fact that
the mind of the Church was not declared until after the epoch when "the mind of
the apostolic writers" would, by lapse of time, have been lost. If by the
writings of the Fathers, then the fact obtrudes itself that the Councils were
convened to detect and expose their heresies, and, therefore, they cannot be
safe guides to the "apostolic mind."
But our author is logical enough to
see that this position is untenable, so he abandons it for another. Pusey
reverenced the Bible as supreme, but his disciple is unembarrassed by any
enthusiasm of faith in Holy Scripture. In his opinion "the Scriptures have
suffered greatly from being isolated." "Nor can a hard-and-fast line be drawn
between what lies within, and what lies without, the canon." And lest any one
should miss the meaning of these monstrous statements, he explains them by an
illustration. "The Epistle to the Hebrews and St. Clement's letter are closely
linked together." And, he adds, "How impossible to tear the one from the
other." Suffice it to say that in the letter referred to, appeal is made to the
Pagan myth of the Pheonix, not incidentally, nor as an, allegory or
illustration, but gravely and as a fact, to establish the truth of the
resurrection. Impossible to tear apart the Scriptures from puerilities and
blunders like these! Could any one have written the sentence above quoted who
believed the New Testament to be a Divine revelation?
(Footnote - And yet the letter which is traditionally attributed to Clement of
Rome is in some respects vastly superior to the writings of the later Fathers.
Suffice it here to say that while expressly connected with the apostolic
Epistles to the Corinthians, it has nothing whatever in common with the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Why then bracket them thus together? The answer to this
question may be gleaned from the following sentence: "For Clement interprets
the high-priesthood of Christ in a sense which, instead of excluding, makes it
the basis of, the ministerial hierarchy of the Church." Now, first, this appeal
to Clement is an admission that Scripture will not support what is pleaded for.
And, secondly, the view here attributed to Clement the ordinary reader will
search for in vain. In the clause referred to he enforces the maxim of 1 Cor.
xiv. 40 (that "let all things be done in order ") by referring to the Jewish
orders of chief priest, priest, levite, and layman, each having his fitting
duties; but in the next clause but one he gives clear proof (as has been
noticed by numberless writers) that he knew nothing of a "ministerial
hierarchy.")
Having thus undermined confidence in Holy Scripture,
the writer goes on to set up the authority of "the Church" in its place. In a
word, he falls back upon the position of medial superstition which was
repudiated at the Reformation by the Church of which he is a minister. The
immense importance of the subject must be my apology for pursuing it; for this
is the teaching by which the people of this nation are being insidiously drawn
back to the darkness, the intellectual and spiritual degradation, from which
the Reformation delivered our forefathers.
Proceeding with his argument
upon inspiration, he says:- "Let us bear carefully in mind the place which
the doctrine holds in the building up of a Christian faith. It is, in fact, an
important part of the superstructure, but it is not among the bases of the
Christian belief. The Christian creed asserts the reality of certain historical
facts. To these facts, in the Church's name, we claim assent; but we do so on
grounds which, so far, are quite independent of the inspiration of the
evangelic records. All that we claim to show at this stage is that they are
historical; not historical so as to be absolutely without error, but historical
in the general sense, so as to be trustworthy. All that is necessary for faith
in Christ is to be found in the moral dispositions which predispose to belief,
and make intelligible and credible the thing to be believed; coupled with such
acceptance of the generally historical character of the Gospels, and of the
trustworthiness of the other apostolic documents, as justifies belief that our
Lord was actually born of the Virgin Mary. . . ." (p. 340). Here in a
single clause - and it is the climax of an argument - we have the root error of
the apostasy, as definitely formulated by Augustine. As Professor Harnack
expresses it,
"The Church guaranteed the truth of the faith, when the
individual could not perceive it."' "To these facts, in the Church's name, we
claim assent." If ever there was an appeal to ignorance and superstition it is
here. Having regard to the Church's history the effrontery of it is amazing.
Its folly will be apparent to any one who brings reason and common sense to
bear upon the question at issue.
(Footnote - In the
same connection he says, "When he (Augustine) threw himself into the arms of
the Catholic Church he was perfectly conscious that he needed its authority not
to sink in scepticism or nihilism" (History of Dogma, vol. v. ch. iii.). We are
asked to follow the teaching of Augustine, and yet he himself was simply
following the crowd - superstition calls it "the Church "- because, like a
timid man in the dark, he could not trust himself to be alone!)
The
first of "these facts," upon which all the rest depend, is that the Nazarene
was the Son of God. The founder of Rome was believed to be the divinely
begotten child of a vestal virgin. And in the old Babylonian mysteries a
similar parentage was ascribed to the martyred son of Semiramis, Queen of
Heaven. What reason have we, then, for distinguishing the birth at Bethlehem
from these and other kindred legends of the ancient world? These men disparage
the Scriptures, and, though yielding a conventional assent to their claim to
inspiration, they refuse even to pledge themselves to their truth; and yet in
the Church's name "they claim assent" to that to which no consensus of mere
human testimony could lend even an a priori probability.
All we need
for faith is to be found, forsooth, in "the moral dispositions which predispose
to belief." When the weak-nerved guest who has been plied with tales about the
haunted room, retires to rest with "the moral dispositions which predispose to
belief" in ghosts, the ghost is certain to appear! And so also here: if we will
but allow our minds to be hypnotised by priests, we shall be prepared to
believe in the Incarnation, the sacrifice of Calvary, the sacrifice of the
Mass, apostolic succession, and the mystic efficacy of the sacraments. And we
shall swallow all these doctrines without any exercise of mind or heart or
conscience, and without any capacity to distinguish between Divine truth and
human error and superstition.
If, on the other hand, the New Testament is a
Divine revelation; if "the evangelic records" are, in the language of the
Apostle Paul, "God-breathed Scriptures," then indeed the Christian can face his
fellow-men with the confession of his faith that the crucified Jew was the Son
of God. But, apart from such a revelation, faith in anything which is outside
the sphere of reason and the senses is mere superstition. The foundation fact
of Christianity is of that character; and those who accept it on the authority
of "the Church" are poor superstitious creatures who would believe
anything.
And such these men prove themselves to be. They believe that the
Nazarene was the Son of God; they believe the same, and on the same authority,
of a piece of bread from the baker's oven. They are like the schoolboy who
answers that six and seven are thirteen, and later on, in reply to a further
question, says that six and eight are thirteen. The wrong answer destroys the
value of the right one, by showing that it rests on no intelligent basis. And
so here. Faith in that which is true is not necessarily true faith. In this
instance it would seem to be sheer credulity. One quotation more to make
clearer still the anti-Christian character of this system :-
"If we
believe . . . that our Lord founded a visible Church, and that this Church with
her creed and Scriptures, ministry and sacraments, is the instrument which He
has given us to use, our course is clear. We must devote our energies to making
the Church adequate to the Divine intention - as strong in principle, as broad
in spirit, as our Lord intended her to be; trusting that, in proportion as her
true motherhood is realised, her children will find their peace within her
bosom. We cannot believe that there is any religious need which at the last
resort the resources of the Church are inadequate to meet."
What does a
man need in the spiritual sphere? Forgiveness of sins ?-the Church will grant
him absolution. Peace with God? -he will find it in the Church's "bosom."
"Grace to help in time of need"? Comfort in sorrow? Strength for the struggles
of life, and support in the solemn hour of death? The whole burden of his need
"the resources of the Church" are adequate to meet.
The Lord Jesus Christ
is all in all in Christianity. But the Christ of this religion holds a position
akin to that of the Sovereign in the British Constitution. Supreme in a sense,
of course, the King must be regarded; but the King never touches the life of
the ordinary citizen. And so here. Professor Harnack describes it admirably in
a single sentence: "Christ as a person is forgotten. The fundamental questions
of salvation are not answered by reference to Him; and in life the baptized has
to depend on means which exist partly alongside, partly independent of Him, or
merely bear His badge."
These words, descriptive of the Romish system under
Gregory the Great, might be fitly placed upon the title-page of The Church
and The Ministry. Witness the prevalence of such language as "salvation
through the Church," "grace communicated from without"- expressions and ideas
wholly foreign to Scripture, but well known in Romish theology. The work opens,
of course, with an appeal to tradition. As soon as the writer comes to
Scripture he at once betrays hopeless confusion between the kingdom of heaven
and the Church of God. The kingdom was the burden of Hebrew prophecy; the
Church was a "mystery" revealed after Israel's rejection of Messiah. He goes on
to confound the Church regarded as "the body of Christ," with the Church as an
organised society on earth. The former is the whole company of the redeemed of
the Christian dispensation; the latter consists of the professing body upon
earth at any particular time. Distinctions of this kind, so clear upon the open
page of Scripture, a false theology ignores; and ignorance of them makes the
New Testament seem a maze of inconsistencies and contradictions.
(Footnote - Such distinctions explain, ex. gr., how the
Lord could say, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" ;
"Go not into the way of the Gentiles," &c.; and yet how He could speak of
I_ivine love to the world, and eternal life for "whosoever bëlieveth .. in
Him." And as regards the twofold aspect of the Church, we find in Eph. iv. Ix,
the ministry designed to fulfil the Diiiie pur-pose for the one, and in r Cor.
xii. 28, we have the provision for the needs of the other. "For the building up
of the body Of Christ" (Eph. iv. 12) we have (in addition to apostles,
prophets, and teachers, which are common to both) evangelists or preachers of
the gospel. In the Church as organised on earth we have no evangelists (for the
Church is supposed to be composed of those who have been brought in by the
gospel), but we have "helps, governments," &c. The sphere of government is
the Church on earth; the sphere of the ministry of the gospel is the world. The
Apostle Paul had this double ministry. "The gospel . . whereof I am made a
minister"; and "the Church whereof I am made a minister" (Col. 1. 23-25).
Apostolic Succession, which is the burden of the book, is the
special subject of the second chapter. The pundits of the Council of Trent had
to face the fact that the Papal system rested upon a single text; the figment
of Apostolic Succession has not even one perverted text to support it. It is
not a question whether provision has been made for a true ministry in the
Church until the end; that is assured by Divine faithfulness and power. But
what we are here asked to believe is that Christ set in motion a mechanical
system which, by a process of finger-tip touches, to be repeated generation
after generation, would transmit to all posterity certain mystical influences,
for the maintenance of what is called "grace."
Now this may be considered
from the standpoint either of Christianity or of reason. As regards the latter,
suffice it here to ask, Is it any wonder that in view of such teaching, so many
intelligent and honest-minded men of the world should come to look upon
religion as a jumble of silly fables and shameful frauds? And as regards the
former, it would be idle to expect that the ordinary reader would follow an
exhaustive exegesis of Scripture on the subject; but perhaps a clear statement
of the error will render unnecessary an elaborate exposition of the truth.
The case stands thus. In the Apostolic Church there were apostles, bishops (or
elders), and ministers. The apostles held a unique position. They admittedly
had to do with the foundation of the Church. That they have successors is a
mere inference. To establish that inference is the object of the treatise here
under notice. A perusal of it will suggest to the intelligent reader a
juggler's attempt to place a ball at rest half way down an inclined plane.
Ordinary folk would place it either at the top or at the bottom. The Christian
takes his stand upon Scripture; the Romanist falls back upon tradition; but
these Romanising Anglicans are the advocates of an unintelligent and impossible
compromise. It is a clever piece of casuistry, nothing more.
Not "deacons." There was no word in the Greek language
for steam-engine when the New Testament was written; neither was there for
deacon; and for the same reason! See Appendix IV., Note II.
No one can
fail to mark the contrast between the tone of this book and that of the volume
cited on p. 46, ante. As we read Canon Bernard's Lectures we seem to be
breathing the pure air of heaven; when we turn to Canon Gore's treatise we are
oppressed by the atmosphere of the crypt and the cloister. In the one we have
Christian theology; in the other the theology of Christendom.
Here
is the scheme: As there were three orders at the first, there must be three
orders now. But as we no longer have apostles, the "bishops" of the New
Testament are moved up to fill their place; and the position thus vacated by
the promoted bishops is occupied by "priests" -not "presbyters writ large," but
priests. The Romanist, more intelligent and more consistent than his imitators,
recognises that above the apostles there was Christ, and so he sets up a Vicar
of Christ, the Pope.
In the sublime arrogance of Rome there is something
which almost commands an unwilling admiration; but this halting imitation of
Rome evokes feelings of a very different kind. And there is nothing more
pitiable about these men than their repudiation of the name of "Protestant." If
their position be not a protest against Rome, it must be designed as a half-way
house to Rome. If they are not Protestants they must be Jesuits. But whatever
their intention, the tendency and results of their teaching are clear. Cardinal
Vaughan writes: "The recent revival of Catholic doctrines and practices in the
Church of England is very wonderful. It is a hopeful sign. It exhibits a
yearning and a turning of the mind and heart towards the Catholic Church. It is
a national clearing the way for something more."'
This religion bears a
relation to Christ, akin to that which the Buddhism of to-day bears to Gautama.
Nineteen centuries ago, as already explained, its Founder injected into His
apostles the "grace" upon which our salvation depends; and the stock of the
commodity now available has come down to us on the finger-tip touch system
through a long succession. Salvation is thus "through the Church," by means of
the sacraments; and therefore, apart from Apostolic Succession in an
episcopacy, there can be no "Church," no valid sacraments, and of course no
salvation. No, not quite that; for, we are told, "God's love is not limited by
His covenant"; He is not bound to His sacraments. Which suggests that,
considering the long ages during which the "sacramental grace" was flowing
through the filthiest channels, sensible people will do well to distrust the
orthodox "grace," and to cast themselves upon the "uncovenanted mercy" of
God.
The Christian of course takes higher ground and denounces the whole
system as both false and profane. It is false; for this theory of salvation
"through the covenant" by "sacramental grace" denies the great characteristic
truth of Christianity. This shall be demonstrated in the sequel. And it is
profane, for it assumes that a "holy, holy, holy God" can recognise immoral and
wicked men as His specially accredited ministers. What would be thought of the
army - what would be thought of the Sovereign - if men convicted of crime, or
disgraced by flagrant and notorious acts of immorality, were allowed to hold
the King's commission? The only Scripture that can be cited in support of the
profanity refutes it. For it was not the death of Judas which determined his
apostleship, but his sin. All the apostles died; but Judas "by transgression
fell." The man who stands upon Apostolic Succession may be indeed a minister of
"the Christians' religion," but he has no valid claim to be acknowleged as a
minister of Christ. He is separated from Christ by nineteen centuries of time,,
and by an impassable slough of moral filth and spiritual apostasy.
To the
superficial the grossness of the imposture is not apparent in the case of those
whose life and character give them personal claims to respect and veneration.
But if the position be tenable at all, such men are "in the same boat" with the
vilest of the miscreants who disgraced the clerical office during the centuries
before the Reformation shamed "the historic Church" into a show of outward
decency, and compelled it to set its house in order. They moreover were "nearer
to the fountain" than are their successors of to-day. And they, forsooth: were
pillars of the Church, and custodians' of "grace," while men like a
Chalmers or a Spurgeon are mere
interlopers, whose deliverance from the doom of Uzzah is due to the
uncovenanted mercy of God! That educated men can be deluded by such a system is
proof of the baneful influence of human religion upon the mind.
Chapter Seven
Literature | Photos | Links | Home