Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

I will not weary

of divine grace bestowed by God on man. you with the history of the delays of the investigation: suffice it to say, that after going on some twenty years no result was arrived at. And, politically, this was the wisest course. For if a decision were made, it must of necessity give offence to one or other of two powerful parties-supported, the one by the King of Spain, the other by the King of France; and there was quite a possibility that the rejected party might refuse to submit, and even pronounce the Pope himself heretical. But would there be any such danger if

* It is worth while to add a few words as to the part taken in this controversy by the great Jesuit, Bellarmine. The controversy arose out of the publication by a Jesuit Professor, Molina, of a book which the Dominicans accused of semi-Pelagianism, and the authoritative condemnation of which they were anxious to obtain. Now, though Bellarmine and other leading Jesuits were unwilling to commit themselves to an approval of all Molina's doctrine, they considered that the condemnation of his book would be a great slur on their Order; and though the condemnation appeared more than once to be on the point of issuing, the Jesuits exercised obstruction so vigorously, that their opposition was in the end successful. It is amusing to read in Cardinal Bellarmine's autobiography how he bullied the poor Pope, Clement VIII., whose own opinion was adverse to Molina. 'You are no theologian,' he said, 'and you must not think that by your own study you can come to understand so very obscure a question.' 'I mean to decide the question,' said the Pope. 'Your Holiness will not decide it,' retorted the Cardinal. There is extant a letter, written after the Congregation appointed by the Pope to examine the matter had reported adversely to Molina, and when he was supposed to be about to act on that report, in which Bellarmine urges that the Pope should not act without first calling a council of bishops, or at least summoning learned men from the Universities. If he acted otherwise, though men would be bound to obey his decree, there would be great murmuring and complaints on the part of the Church and the Universities that they had not been properly consulted. That the Pope should attempt to study the question for himself was a very tedious and unsatisfactory method, and not that which had been followed by his predecessors. Did Leo X. trouble himself with study when he condemned the Lutheran heretics? He just confirmed the conclusions arrived at by the Catholic Universities of Cologne and Louvain. Paul IV., Julius ÍII., Pius IV., were no students; yet, with the help of the Council of Trent, they declared most important truths. See, on the other hand, what scrapes John XXII. got into when he endeavoured to promulgate the views concerning the Beatific Vision, to which his own study had led him. See into what danger Sixtus V. brought himself and the whole Church-one of the greatest dangers the Church was ever inwhen he attempted to correct the Bible according to his own knowledge. And the Pope must be careful not to give occasion to anyone to think that he had made up his own mind before the question had been scientifically investigated. Why, he had said things to Bellarmine himself

the parties to the dispute believed in the Pope's infallibility, or if he believed in it himself? If Christ Himself appeared upon earth, we should be glad to obtain from Him an authoritative solution of any of our religious controversies, and we should not dream of stopping His mouth lest his decision should be opposed to our prepossessions. So, though these men profess to believe that the Pope, as a guide to truth, fills the place of Christ on earth, their conduct proves that they do not believe what they say. And the Pope's own conduct shows that he felt himself not in the position of a judge authorized to pronounce a decision to which all parties must submit, but only in that of the common friend of two angry disputants, in favour of neither of whom he dare plainly declare himself on pain of losing the friendship of the other.

In other words, every time the Pope has thought of making a dogmatic decision, he has had to make a prudential calculation of the danger of provoking a schism; and on the occasion of his last definition a schism, as you know, was actually made. But fear on his part of secession shows mutual want of faith in Roman pretensions. For who would punish himself by seceding from the only authorized channel of divine communications? Who would refuse to believe anything if it was declared to him by God Himself, or by one who, he was quite sure, had authority to speak in God's name? Lord Bacon tells a story of a wise old man who got a great reputation for his success in settling disputes. When privately asked by a friend to explain the secret of his success, he told him it was because he made it a rule to himself never to interfere until the parties had completely talked themselves out, and were glad to get peace on any terms. That was just the way in which the Pope settled the controversy about the Immaculate Conception, by carefully holding his tongue until the dispute was practically over.

which had made him resolve to withdraw, and treat no more of the question. If such a one as he lost courage, who had been studying these subjects for thirty years, what would others do? (Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmin. Bonn: 1887, p. 260.) There could not be a better illustration how ill the authority of official position fares when it comes into collision with the authority of superior knowledge.

THE HESITATIONS OF THE INFALLIBLE

DR.

GUIDE.

R. GOLDSMITH tells us that the Vicar of Wakefield's daughters were given by their mother a guinea a-piece, because the honour of the family required that they should always have money in their pocket; but that each was under strict conditions never to change her guinea. The Pope seems to possess the gift of infallibility on the same terms. The 'honour of the family' requires that he should have it, but obvious considerations of prudence constantly deter him from using it. The slowness of the Pope to interfere in controversies within his own communion is part of a system. I could give illustrations in abundance of the nervous fear of the infallible authority to commit itself irrevocably to any opinion, without leaving always an outlet for retreat in case of need; but the copiousness of material makes selection difficult.

Romish teaching has constantly a double face. To those within the communion it is authoritative, positive, stamped with the seal of infallibility, which none may dispute without forfeiting his right to be counted a good Catholic. Consequently, I have heard Roman Catholic laymen express the utmost astonishment at hearing their Church charged with want of positiveness in her utterances, this being, in their opinion, the last fault that can be charged upon her. But this is because they only know how she speaks to those who will not venture to challenge the correctness of her teaching. She speaks differently to those who have courage to impugn it and bring it to a test. Then the statements assailed are said to be but private, unauthorized opinion, to which the

Church is not pledged, and which may be proved to be absurd without injuring her reputation.

(1). For example, since we are told that private judgment is insufficient to determine with certainty the meaning of Scripture, it might be expected that the infallible guide would publish an authorized commentary on Scripture, setting forth the interpretation guaranteed by that unanimous consent of the Fathers, according to which the Creed of Pius IV. binds all to interpret. But nothing of the kind has been done. If annotated editions are sometimes issued with the approval of the authorities, the sanction is intended to imply no more than apparent freedom from grave heresy, and the notes rest only on the credit of the authors.

Indeed it did at one time seem that the very thing I ask for was about to be done. In the year 1813, advertisements were circulated announcing an edition of THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, explained or illustrated with valuable notes or annotations, according to the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is our infallible and unerring guide in reading the Holy Scriptures and leading us unto salvation.' The names of all, or almost all, the Irish Roman Catholic bishops were printed as patronizing the undertaking; and, when the work actually appeared, the title-page professed that the edition was sanctioned and patronized by the Roman Catholic prelates and clergy of Ireland. What more could anyone wish than this? But the issue of this attempt to give 'the interpretation of the Catholic Church, which is our infallible and unerring guide in reading the Scriptures,' was so unfortunate that the attempt is not likely to be repeated.

When the promised edition (Macnamara's) appeared, some copies fell into the hands of Protestants, who called attention to the doctrine of the Rhemish notes which they contained. There is no subject to which the annotators so perpetually recur as the duty of the individual to hold no intercourse with heretics that can be avoided, and the duty of the State to punish heretics, and even put them to death.*

* Here are some of them :

Matt. xiii. 29.-The good must tolerate the evil where it is so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger and disturbance of the whole

XII.]

MACNAMARA'S NEW TESTAMENT.

189

The agitation on the subject of the Emancipation Bill was then going on; and this publication threatened seriously to damage the prospects of the Bill, by confirming apprehensions then prevalent as to the use Roman Catholics would be likely to make of any political power they might obtain. Accordingly, the book was denounced by O'Connell, and you will find in his published speeches* that he had no scruple in calling on the Catholic Association to repudiate these notes, which he stigmatized as 'odious,' 'execrable,' 'abominable,' notwithstanding that they had for two hundred years been recognized as approved by high Roman

Church; and commit the matter to God's judgment in the latter day. Otherwise, where ill men, be they heretics or other malefactors, may be punished or suppressed without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed.'

Luke ix. 55.-'Not justice nor all rigorous punishment of sinners is here forbidden, nor Elias's fact reprehended, nor the Church or Christian princes blamed for putting heretics to death; but that none of these should be done for desire of our particular revenge, or without discretion and regard of their amendment and example to others.'

2 Tim. iii. 9.—'All wise men in a manner see their falsehood, though for fear of troubling the state of such commonwealths, where unluckily they have been received, they cannot be suddenly extirpated.'

Acts xxv. II.-'If St Paul doubted not to claim the succour of the Roman laws, and to appeal to Cæsar, the prince of the Romans not yet christened, how much more may we call for the aid of Christian princes and the laws for their punishment of heretics and for the Church's defence against them?

Luke xiv. 23.-St. Augustine referreth this "compelling" to the penal laws, which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catholic Church, and are departed from the same after sects, may and ought to be compelled into the unity and society of the universal Church again. And therefore in this sense, by the two former parts of the parable, the Jews first, and secondly the Gentiles that never before believed in Christ, were invited by fair sweet means only; but by the third such are invited as the Church of God hath power over, because they promised in baptism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.' See infra the passage quoted from Thomas Aquinas.

Rev. xvii. 6.-'The Protestants foolishly expound this of Rome, for that there they put heretics to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries; but their blood is not called the blood of saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors, for the shedding of which by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer.'

Meeting of Catholic Association, Dec., 4, 1817. (O'Connell's Speeches, edited by his Son, vol. ii., p. 257.)

« ÖncekiDevam »