Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

III.] NO CERTAINTY ATTAINABLE BY THIS PROCESS.

57

that God will be with her to the consummation of the world, cannot err in her teaching; she is, by God's appointment, infallible.

Such, in substance, is Bishop Clifford's reply; but, in offering it, he wholly misconceives the exigencies of his position. He brings out the infallibility of the Church as the result of a long line of argument. This doctrine, which

is wanted for the foundation of the building, is with him the coping-stone of the structure; or, to state the matter more correctly, it is the last storey of a house of cards. For the whole argument is full of disputable points. Thus, in the last clause of paragraph (a), and the Church is that society," he, no doubt, by the Church' means the Church of Rome, to the exclusion, for example, of the Anglican Church and of the Eastern; but it need not be said what room for controversy there is on that point. In paragraph (d) there is a tremendous jump in the assumption that to prove the Divine institution of the Church is enough to prove its infallibility. For with regard to the State, we are told the powers that be are ordained of God,' yet it does not follow that 'the powers that be' can never issue unjust commands.

But this is not the time to examine the goodness of Bishop Clifford's arguments; that will come under discussion at a later stage: what we are now concerned with is whether such a proof as is here offered us makes any pretence of being adequate to the necessities of the case. What is wanted is a proof which will induce us to accept without doubting the teaching of the Church. Now, you cannot submit without doubting to a doubtful authority. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to say, You must accept without the least doubt the assertions of the Church of Rome, because it is an even chance that she may be infallible. What degree of assurance, then, is such an argument as Bishop Clifford's calculated to afford? You cannot have more assurance of the truth of the conclusion of a long line of argument than whatever assurance you have of the truth of every premiss, and of the correctness of every inference, used in the argument. If doubt attaches to any one step in the argument,

that doubt will attach to the conclusion: if doubt attaches to more steps than one, the conclusion is affected by multiplied doubt.

Now, Bishop Clifford cannot possibly imagine that the steps of his argument are free from doubt. The line of argument is, in its general features, the same as that employed by Protestants, which Roman Catholic advocates are fond of saying is not sufficient to warrant certainty of belief without the testimony of an infallible Church. But if Bishop Clifford's account of the matter is right, Protestants have ten times as much certainty as Roman Catholics. For the arguments by which the former establish their faith are accepted as good and valid by the latter, to the foundation of whose system they are indispensable. But the arguments necessary to establish the points in the system of Roman Catholics which are peculiar to them are such that nobody but themselves can see any cogency in them.

Bishop Clifford was probably aware of the weakness of the proof he offers; for he is careful to say that this is only the line of argument which the Church offers to unbelievers. But Logic has not one rule for believers, another for unbelievers. If the proof which the Church tenders to unbelievers is not satisfactory, she does not mend matters by saying, Oh, you will be fully satisfied if you will only take my word for everything. This is much the same as if one, seeking a place with you as a servant, brought you a recommendation which you did not think satisfactory, and then thought to make it all right by writing his own name on the back of it. However, I remember that this line of defence was taken up long ago by Dr. Newman, and I believe it is as plausible as any that can be adopted. He frankly owned the impossibility of making out any proof of her claims which will be felt as demonstratively convincing by one who has not already submitted to her. He taught that one must not expect certainty in the highest sense before conversion. 'Faith must make a venture, and is rewarded by sight.'* The claims of the Church shine, as it were, by their own light.

* See Loss and Gain, pp. 284, 318.

III.] EXAMINE ROMAN CLAIMS BEFORE SUBMISSION.

59

She comes and calls on you, in the name of God, to bow down before her. And though, perhaps, you can give no reason logically unassailable for submitting to her, yet, after you have submitted, you find that you have done well. You find in her bosom rest, peace, freedom from doubt; and you are sure that she who has bestowed these gifts upon you must be divine.

Now, assuredly we do not deny that an alleged revelation may powerfully commend itself by internal evidence. He who has received such a revelation on its external proofs may find additional reason for trusting it in the consistency of its doctrines with each other, their reasonableness, their holiness, their adaptation to the wants of his nature. Such arguments as these go to make up great part of the grounds of the conviction we all feel that the Bible comes from God. But this rational conviction can be felt by no member of a Church claiming to be infallible. For her first principle is, that her teaching shall be subjected to no criticism. A disciple of the Church of Rome is bound to crush down every doubt as sinful—must reject every attempt to test the teaching of his Church by reason or Scripture or antiquity, Consequently, her teaching can never receive any subsequent verification. The certainty of her disciples can never rise higher than it was the first moment they submitted to her. The pretence of subsequent verification really presents us with a petitio principiï in the most outrageous form. 'You must believe everything I say,' demands the Pope. Why should we?' we inquire. Well, perhaps I cannot give any quite convincing reason; but just try it. If you trust me with doubt or hesitation, I make no promise; but if you really believe everything I say, you will find,-that you will believe everything I say.' It follows, then, that all the Church of Rome can promise is what any guide can promise who insists on blindfolding his passengers. Trust yourselves implicitly to me, and you shall thenceforward feel no doubt or perplexity; you shall never see any reason to make you think that I am leading you wrong. Whatever may be the difficulties or dangers in the path, you shall never perceive any of them.' It requires no Divine commission to be able

[ocr errors]

I

to promise freedom from doubt on such terms as these. could promise as much to any of you. I could tell you all: 'If you never use your understanding, it will never lead you wrong. If you never inquire, you will never be perplexed. If you take all your opinions on trust from others, you will be free from all the painful uncertainty that attends the task of forming opinions for yourselves.' No; if you wish to make sure that the Church of Rome is a trustworthy guide, you must examine her claims before you submit to her. For, as her present rulers teach, he who once puts himself under her guidance abandons all means of verification of her doctrines, and has no power of detecting error, should any exist.

This argument of Dr. Newman's was revived some little time ago by Mr. Mallock. He had been in the habit of publishing articles in magazines, in which he criticized other people's beliefs and disbeliefs so freely, that it was hard to know what he believed or did not believe himself. At last he published an essay, of which the gist was that Romanism alone could make head against infidelity; that all attempts to defend Christianity by argument must end in failure; but that a religion which demands submission without proof may hold its ground for ever. For a time, I grant; but certainly only for a time. Was ever the cause of Christianity so treacherously defended? If infamous charges were made against my character, perhaps there are some of you who might think well enough of me to disbelieve them without examination. But suppose anyone were to defend me after this fashion: Dr. Salmon says he is a good man, and I earnestly pray you to take his own word for it; for if you permit yourself to inquire into the charges against him, you will be forced to come to an unfavourable conclusion about him, which would be so very uncomfortable for you to hold, that it will be a great deal wiser for you to make no inquiry.' Do you think I should be grateful for such a defence as that? or that I could regard the maker of it as other than an enemy who scarcely took the trouble to disguise his malignity? If this be the best that can be said for the Church of Rome, the peace of mind which she offers is just that which might be

III.] EXAMINE ROMAN CLAIMS BEFORE SUBMISSION.

61

offered by the directors of some Glasgow Bank, who had made away with their customers' money, but hoped that by bold speaking they might carry on their business prosperously, and prevent their accounts being looked into.

Recently an attempt has been made to place the system of Roman Catholic belief on a more scientific foundation. Of this I shall speak in the next lecture.

« ÖncekiDevam »