Chapter I.
(This chapter is not included
in The Buddha of Christendom)
1
"IT was the main
purpose of the then rulers of the Church to put prominently forward
the supremacy of the Bible."
These words
are quoted from the Archbishops' decision in the famous Incense case;
and they indicate the chief aim of the leaders of the Reformation in
England. For the Reformation was not merely a revival, it was a revolt.
And ecclesiastical supremacy was the bondage from which those brave
and noble men delivered us.
That Church
which is the vital unity of the Body of Christ Rome confounds with the
visible Church on earth—the public organisation entrusted to human
administration. But more than this, the Church on earth, which, according
to Scripture, is the congregation of the faithful, the Romish system
represents as an authority established to govern the faithful, with
power to control not only their acts but their beliefs.
2
The following words of Cardinal Newman will afford an admirable text
for the discussion of the question here at issue. With reference to
the dogma of Transubstantiation, he writes: "I had no difficulty in
believing it as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was
the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part
of the original revelation."
Transubstantiation,
the Reformers maintain,
"overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."[1]
Simple and
clear though this statement
be, people fail to grasp its meaning.
A sacrament is merely a sign or symbol to represent some spiritual reality.
In the Eucharist, for example, the bread is bread and nothing more,
but it represents the Lord's body. If therefore the bread be regarded
as being in fact His body, it is no longer a ''sacrament" at all.
[1]
Article XXVIII.
But let us
analyse Cardinal Newman's words. Why should we believe that a piece
of bread is flesh, seeing that, judged by every possible test, it is
not flesh but only bread? The Roman Catholic replies that we should
believe it on the authority of the Church, for the Church is the oracle
of God. But why, we demand again,
3
should we believe the Church to be the oracle of God? We should believe
it, the Roman Catholic tells us, because the Church is thus accredited
by Holy Scripture. Is it not then our plain duty to test this claim
by referring to the Scripture? "Certainly not," is the emphatic rejoinder;
"that is Protestant heresy of the worst kind. For the Church is the
oracle of God, and therefore the authoritative exponent of Scripture;
and instead of using our own judgement or reason, we must accept the
Church's teaching on the subject." To the enlightened this may be the
highest wisdom; but to the benighted Protestant it bears a sinister
resemblance to the artifice which, in another sphere, the vulgar describe
as "ringing the changes."
"Why, even
of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?" (Luke 12:57) the Lord demanded
of the unbelieving Jews. But while faith is the highest exercise of
reason, Newman's position is the complete abnegation of reason. "Come
now, and let us reason together," (Isaiah 1:18) was the Divine appeal
to His people in the old time, even in days of apostasy. And coupled
with that appeal was the Divine lament, "My people doth not consider"
(Isaiah 1:3). And the word is emphatic and significant. It means using
their intelligence, and thinking for themselves,
4
instead of blindly following their religious leaders, or in other words
"obeying the voice of the Church."
That the
Church is "the oracle of God" is a figment unsupported by evidence and
disproved by facts. But no matter how able and pious a man may be, if
he stultifies his reason by accepting it, he has "no difficulty in believing"
that a piece of bread is the flesh of the Lord of Glory. In the same
way he would have "no difficulty in believing" that this earth is not
a planet but a fixed plane and the centre of the solar system; that
the drivel contained in some parts of the Apocrypha was divinely inspired;
and that the tortures of the Inquisition and the fires of Smithfield
[see note] were
divinely sanctioned and blessed!
Ed.
note:—After
Wycliffe's death in 1384, a council was held in Rome that called upon
magistrates in every country to crush the rising "heresy" by condemning
to death those who refused to abjure Wycliffe's doctrines. In England,
De
haeretico comburendowas enacted
under Henry IV in 1401 declaring that persistent heretics were to be
burned, and all heretical books—i.e., Bibles—were
to be destroyed.
The
first victim of this law was William Sawtre, a Lollard priest, in 1401.
In 1410 Henry IV issued a warrant for the burning of Thomas Badby, a
Lollard tailor accused of denying transubstantiation. Badby was burned
at Smithfield Market near London. During the reign of Henry VIII (1509)
martyrs burned at Smithfield included John Lambert, Dr. Robert Barnes,
Thomas Gerrard, William Jerome, and Anne Askew. John Rogers was burned
at Smithfield under Queen Mary in 1555.
Superstition
such as this explains the advice which Pascal gave to those who found
a difficulty in accepting the dogmas of the Church. Take to religion,
he said in effect, "for that will make you stupid and enable you to
believe."[2]
[2]
He is dealing with the difficulties of people who say they cannot believe,
and he urges them to act as if they believed, using the ordinances,
holy water, masses, etc, etc., and he adds: "Naturellement meme cela
vous fera croire et vous abetira." The passage is given by Matthew
Arnold in the preface to God and the Bible. No wonder that Pascal's
Port Royal editors suppressed words so cruelly cynical, though so true.
For while Christianity elevates or ennobles the whole being, human religion
seems to make men either fools or fiends.
5
It is important to notice, first, that the Church for which this monstrous
claim is made is not "the Catholic Church of undivided Christendom,"
but that section of it called the "Catholic Roman Church;" and secondly
that the claim is not based on a history marked by purity of faith and
morals such as might be deemed proof of divine calling and favour. Any
appeal to considerations of that kind would be fatal; and Rome discreetly
founds its claims upon the figment of "Apostolic succession." This was
made emphatically clear by the Papal Bull of September, 1896. Exposing
the duplicity and ignorance of the Anglican Romanisers, who sought Papal
recognition of Anglican Orders, that Bull declared:—"A
new rite was publicly introduced under Edward VI (1537-53—Protestant
son of Henry VIII—ed.);
the true Sacrament of Orders, as introduced by Christ, lapsed, and with
it the hierarchical succession."
While the
Anglican conspirators sought to ignore the Reformation, the Pope of
Rome thus insisted on its importance. To quote Cardinal Vaughan, "They
have persuaded themselves that their clergy are really sacerdotal; that
they possess sacrificing powers, and that
6
they hold direct continuity from the old Catholic Church of England,
as founded by St. Augustine." A "strange and almost incomprehensible
belief," he justly calls it, for a main object with the Reformers was
to break that continuity of guilt, and to set the national Church upon
a basis only and altogether divine.[3]
[3]
See p. 1 ante. Cardinal Vaughn's
words are quoted from a letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo,
warning the Spanish bishops against being deceived by Lord Halifax and
the Church Union conspiracy. It appeared in the Times [London]
of Nov. 29, 1894.
I
am reminded of one of my visits to the Cardinal. It was in connection
with an unpleasant Police case. I gave him certain facts which led me
to believe that one of his priests was a thoroughly evil man. He listened
with an incredulous air, and then, opening the "Clergy List," he showed
me that the delinquent was a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England.
My apology for troubling him was, that the man called himself a Catholic
priest, and my officers never doubted that he was a Roman Catholic.
To which the Cardinal replied, "My dear Mr. Anderson, these men call
themselves Catholic priests, but they are double-dyed Protestants!"
And what
was the action of the English Archbishops in this matter? Instead of
seizing the opportunity to re-affirm the principles of the Reformation,
they openly took sides with the conspirators. Their "'letter" of 19th
February, 1897, was in effect an appeal to their "venerable brother
Pope Leo XIII. "to acknowledge that the Clergy of the Church of England
7
were sacrificing priests and that they ought to be recognised as such
by Rome. Did these Prelates never stand by the Martyrs' Memorial at
Oxford? [see note] Or were they so blinded by the superstitions to which
they thus pandered that they failed to realise that Cranmer and Ridley
and Latimer, who were there burned to death, stood for the Church of
England, or rather for the truth of God, and that the guilt of that
hideous crime rests upon the apostate Church with which they thus basely
sought to ally themselves? Was there ever a more shameful betrayal of
the National Church!
Ed.
note: - Thomas Cranmer became Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign
of Henry VIII. After Henry's death, Cranmer instituted a number of reforms
in the English Church under Edward VI, including replacement of Roman
Catholic bishops in London and Winchester by Protestants Hugh Latimer
and Nicholas Ridley.
After Edward's death in 1533, Roman Catholic "bloody" Mary became queen.
In 1555 Latimer and Ridley were tried, convicted of opposing the Roman
Catholic Church in England, and burned together at Oxford. As the fire
was lit, eighty-year-old Latimer was hear to say to Ridley, "We shall
this day light such a candle by God's grace in England, as I trust shall
never be put out." Later, Cranmer signed a retraction of his "heresies"
under severe duress, but Mary was determined to have him burned. On
the day of his execution in 1556, in the very place where Latimer and
Ridley had been burned, he was expected to publicly read his statement,
but instead renounced it, and said, "For as much as my hand hath offended,
writing contrary to my heart, therefore this my hand shall first be
punished; for when I come to the fire it shall first be burned." When
the fire was lit he was seen to hold his right hand in the flames where
he allowed it to burn before the rest of his body was touched.
In the days
of Pagan Rome the Church was on the side of the martyrs. But under Papal
Rome the martyrs were the victims of "the Church." The Reformers of
the sixteenth century were the proscribed antagonists of the religion
of Christendom. The struggle for the truth, and for the liberty which
we owe to the maintenance of the truth, was waged by men who dared to
stand out against "the Church," denouncing its errors and defying its
power. But in these strange days of ours, the great question which till
lately we supposed the Reformation had settled for ever, is again re-opened
in all kinds of insidious ways. And
8
a superstitious and false view of "the Church" is the main cause of
our troubles.
According
to the Reformers "the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of
faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached." But, according
to Rome, the Church is, as already noticed, an institution set up to
lord it over the "congregation of faithful men," and to mediate between
them and God. Such a conception of the Church is essentially anti-Christian;
and even if the Historic Church of Christendom had been always pure,
and true to its high ideals, it would be none the less an outrage upon
Christians and Christian truth.
But there
are many who, though they have no sympathy with Rome, consider that
the work of the Reformation was marred by fanatical excess. The Reformers,
they would tell us, ought to have been content to fall back upon "the
Primitive Church of the Fathers." But those great men acted with full
knowledge of facts and truths which are now forgotten or ignored. They
knew that the much vaunted Church of the Fathers was tainted with the
errors and evils which were afterwards developed in the Romish system.
While at
Scotland Yard I watched the excavations
9
for the building which has been erected on the then vacant ground across
the way. The removal of a deep layer of river mud, permeated by the
foul refuse of centuries, disclosed a rich bed of sand which had been
thrown up by the sea in an earlier age. That sand was pure and wholesome
in comparison with the filth which had been heaped upon it. But it was
cleared away, and the foundations of the new building were laid on the
rock which lay beneath. This parable needs no interpreting. The Reformers
knew well what they were about when they refused to build even upon
"the Primitive Church of undivided Christendom," and insisted on going
back to Apostolic times, and laying their foundations deep and firm
on the bed-rock of Holy Scripture.
In his exposition
of the parable of Matthew xii. 43-45, Dean Alford, after explaining
its primary reference to the Jewish people, goes on to notice its application
to "the Christian Church." Here are his words: "Strikingly parallel
with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the
Apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church
of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of the
Reformation has been to
10
Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth
of hypocrisy, secularity and rationalism, the house has become empty,
swept and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of civilisation
and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest
faith. And he must read prophecy but ill who does not see under all
these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development
of the man of sin, the great re-possession, when idolatry and the seven
[more wicked spirits] shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom
to a fearful end."
These words
have no reference to the Church regarded as the Body of Christ, the
vital unity. Between the Bible and the Church in this its first and
highest aspect, there can be no conflict, no antithesis. The Lord's
promise is eternal, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it." Dean Alford's words refer to the Professing
Church on earth, "the outward frame" entrusted to the care of men. And
keeping this clearly in view - we shall recognise that the Church on
earth has apostatised from the place divinely given to it, and has utterly
failed to fulfil its mission. And justifying the conduct and attitude
of the Reformers,
11
we shall avoid the superstitions and errors from which they sought to
deliver us.
To defend
their acts and words is my main purpose in these pages. And my method
will be to give plain facts and clear testimony for the consideration
of the thoughtful. "Muck-rake" work in the filth of pre-Reformation
times is not sufficient. It is necessary to go farther back, and by
an appeal to the writings of the Fathers themselves, to throw light
upon the condition of the "Primitive Church."
But all
this suggests a preliminary inquiry. The history of all ages and of
every land gives proof that in the sphere of religion man always drifts
away from God. What explanation can be offered of this strange and sinister
law of gravitation in the spiritual sphere? The following investigation
of the problem is conducted on new lines. And it is here placed first,
because the solution of it will prepare the way for all that follows.
*
* *
The
preceding chapter was taken from:
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH? by Sir Robert Anderson.
Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1908, no copyright.
Buddha of Christendom, Ch III. / Bible or Church?, Ch
II.
|
