Page images
PDF
EPUB

separation between the opposing forces is wide, deep, long, and even furious in its threatenings, with little to encourage the irenical believer that it will ever be bridged or filled up. We do not now intend to account for the alienation, or to philosophize upon the justice of Protestantism in its attitude of hostility to the old Church, or to suggest even a tentative method of reconciliation by which the reproach of Christendom may be wiped out and the organic union of the divided sections be restored. We may express regret over the situation, and deplore the bigotry of both sides, but there are so many difficulties in the way of even a fraternal recognition between them, that we do not anticipate any special change in mutual relations during the present century. These difficulties we feel bound to state, with the comments they suggest.

The fundamental position of the Roman Catholic Church respecting the Protestants is, that they are errorists, both in practice and doctrine, and that their unconditional abandonment of error is the prima facie condition of any hope of consideration from the Roman hierarchy. Inquir ing into the meaning of this charge, we find that it goes back three hundred years, implicating the original movement of separation under the Reformers, and condemning them as rebels against the Most High. On their part it was a crime of unforgivable iniquity to retire from the corrupt Church and organize a Church that would more fully represent the divine ideas of love and righteousness among men; and as the descendants of the original Protestants justify the rebellion of their forefathers they share the responsibility of the secessional movement. The great error of the Protestant, then, is in being a Protestant, or in disavowing allegiance by overt acts to the Roman See, and assuming any right of independence from the old authority. It seems never to occur to the Roman Catholic that the Protestant movement rests upon an intelligent motive, and that it was born of religious conviction, and is striving to promote, not its own ends, but the triumph of the Master's kingdom. He hears nothing of motives; he cares nothing for religious results; he condemns the separation, expiation for which can only be made by an apologetic and unqualified surrender to the power represented by the Vatican. It is needless to say that the fundamental position of Protestantism is the reverse of the fundamental position of Roman Catholicism, and until there is a change of fundamental position on one side or the other, unity is out of the question.

The Protestants are errorists, according to the Roman Catholic, not only because they left the old fold, but because of their rejection of Roman Catholic teaching, and of holding to an interpretation of the Scriptures which, from the time of Hildebrand, has been offered in the old Church. It is true, many things taught by the priesthood are objectionable to the Protestant sense, and find no place in our theology, and to that extent, from their stand-point, we are errorists. We repudiate with vehement indignation such superstitions as Mariolatry, purgatory, priestly absolution, the system of indulgences, and the infallibility of the pope. We should scorn ourselves if we had no more sense than to

believe in the stigmata of St. Francis, the miracle-working power of the bones of St. Peter, the snake-killing feat of St. Patrick, or the angelic transportation of the home of Mary from Nazareth to Loretto. When it comes to accepting doctrinal error the Roman Catholic will imbibe a hogshead when the Protestant could hardly be persuaded to take a gill. Many of the so-called doctrinal errors of Protestantism, it may be added, are of Roman Catholic origin-as consubstantiation, which is a mild form of transubstantiation; baptismal regeneration, which is secondhand in Protestantism; second probation, which has its root in purgatory; and the growing tendency to ritualism, which, wherever it is in the ascendant, suppresses the tendency to a scriptural spiritualism. Different from these, and directly antagonized by Roman authority, are such doctrines as the right of private judgment in religion; of reading the Scriptures for one's self; of obtaining forgiveness without the mediation of a priest; of having the witness of the Spirit, and of knowing that one is a child of God except through the priesthood. If holding to these teachings constitutes Protestants errorists, they plead guilty, but they are proud of their guilt. If there was no justification on ecclesiastical grounds for separation from the Catholics, the separation on doctrinal or religious grounds cannot well be impeached by those who believe in God, . or have any respect for man.

Since Protestants are errorists on these grounds, it is not difficult to understand the terms of unity which the Roman Catholic Church would propose. The first thing to do is to return to the old Church, with words of repentance on our lips, with ashes of humility on our heads, expecting nothing except what it most graciously may choose to extend to us. If we should be refused admittance on any terms, it is what we might justly expect; hence, admittance on so easy a condition as repentant return would imply a dispensation of mercy rare in the annals of that Church. When, however, it is remembered that the Protestants have no more idea of returning to Catholicism than the Catholics have of embracing Protestantism; and when, also, it will be conceded that the only condition on which Protestants would incline to a union with Roman Catholics would be through an abandonment on the part of the latter of their superstitions and ferocities, that return would seem to be far off.

Any attempt to bring about a union of the two Churches on the basis of existing doctrines would be equally futile, because, while there is much in common between them touching Scriptural teaching, the variations from the Scriptures, and the traditions exalted into truths by the Roman Catholics, would be a bar to any organic relation with Protestants. Dr. Keane, the president of the Catholic University in Washington, D. C., proposes a union on the basis of the Council of Trent, which is as unacceptable to us as the Christmas Conference of Methodists would be to them. With all the imperfections of the Tridentine oracles we could, however, more readily unite on them, if at all, than on the catalogue of doctrines issued by current Romanism, with its Mariolatry and papal infallibility. But the decretals of the Council of Trent cannot afford standing ground

for those of advanced Protestant foresight and purpose, for from them have sprung all the heresies, abominations, and cruelties with which Romanism has loaded itself for three hundred years. It is absolutely impossible for the old Church to effect a reconciliation with Protestantism on the antiquated notions of the historic council, or on any basis that the most astute Roman Catholic theologians will venture to propose for years to come.

We rest this conclusion upon the premise that in a proposal of union the Protestants will dictate the conditions, not because of numbers, but because civilization, in its spirit and function, is anti-Catholic, and forbids any union that implies a surrender of vital Protestant principles as they are applied to civil government and to the Church. The Protestant position is fundamental and unyielding, and must be the basis of mutual relations, or relations are impossible. What that position is, or upon what it is primarily based, may be stated without circumlocution, or even in logical form. It is more than the reverse of the Roman Catholic position. Instead of confessing that they themselves are errorists, Protestants charge Roman Catholics with being errorists of a very black, if not irre deemable cast, and put them on the defensive before the civilized world and history. They are traditionists, ceremonialists, superstition-mongers, hypocritical exegetes, tyrants cruel as death, and false teachers of the truths of religion. In this counter-defiance we have the advantage that truth and justice always give to the advocate; for Protestantism is not chargeable with superstitions and general abomination of teaching. Besides, being en rapport with modern civilization, advocating the education of the masses, and the evangelization of the nations according to the liberal and progressive ideas of the times, Protestantism may rightly claim, and is receiving, the support of civilization. The trend of things is to the curtailment of papal influence among the nations. Even Roman Catholic France, in its legislative capacity, reminds the hierarchy of its dependence upon government, and deprives it of its accustomed control of public education.

Under these circumstances we are unable to discover any prospect of a union of Christendom; but, on the contrary, do anticipate more intense conflict between the belligerents until the weight of history shall determine the issue. The Catholic is too supercilious to think of surrendering, even when truth demands it; the Protestant is too self-respectful to sacrifice his individuality and his divine rights so as to harmonize with the Council of Trent or with the superstitions of Rome. The Catholic has inherited the spirit of Catharine and the Spanish Inquisition, and cannot be expected to chant the anthem of the angels at the Advent; the Protestant has inherited the conquering Christianity of Paul, Luther, John Wesley, and John Knox, and he must not be expected to modify his faith so long as a leaf of the Bible remains, or return to the harlot of abominations so long as the Sun of Righteousness smiles upon him from the heavens and guides him into a knowledge of the truth.

THE ARENA.

DR. WILLIAM NAST ON RATIONALISM.

[AN invitation was recently extended to Dr. Nast to favor the Review with an opinion on Higher Criticism. We received the following reply, which, as it touches a fundamental point or two, we deem important to give to the public.-EDITOR.]

MY VERY DEAR DR. MENDENHALL: Your position on the so-called higher criticism, and the great service you rendered to all German Methodists in America and in Germany in opening the Review to Dr. Yeakel, brought me, who was a comparative stranger to you, very near you. Accept my heartfelt thanks for all this, and also for your kindness in asking me to send you a contribution for the Methodist Review. I confess that I had a great desire, when I read your bold charge on the rationalism that has crept into the Evangelical Churches of this country in exactly the same manner as it had done more than a century ago into the Lutheran Churches of Germany, to express to you my thanks for your giving the alarm, and to cheer you by reminding you of the way in which German rationalism met with a Waterloo defeat on the theological arena. If the Lord gives me time and strength I may be enabled to say to you, after awhile, something on this subject in a private correspondence, and if you should consider it worthy of appearing in your Review it will be at your service.

I can hardly refrain from throwing out a hint. In defining rationalism you have not to deal so much with the liberties that are taken with regard to textual criticism, including the authorship and time of the composition of the Pentateuch and other documents, as with the unjustifiable principle of interpretation which constitutes the essence of rationalism. It is admitted that the revealed will of God is contained in the Holy Scriptures; but it is denied that statements in the Bible, which if taken in their simple grammatical sense do not satisfy human reason, can claim to be accepted as divinely inspired. It is denied that the Bible itself can furnish a perfectly reliable and satisfactory solution of its own declarations, especially with regard to unfulfilled prophecy, which is laid aside entirely because, we are told, we have no basis of interpretation given in the Bible itself. But pardon me for having written what I have no time to explain or sustain. I wanted only to allude to the arrogance of rationalism to decide which statements are divinely inspired and which are not, and which statements may be taken in their simple grammatical sense and which must be made to mean what they do not say.

Cincinnati, Ohio.

With highest esteem,

WILLIAM NAST.

A REPLY TO DR. SHERMAN.*

I have read with much surprise Dr. Sherman's article in the November number of the Review on the late Dr. James Porter. I am sorry, however, that I am compelled, in the interests of the truth of history, to traverse the following statement on pages 866 and 867:

6

"The unfortunate incident of his official term was the difference between the agents, which opened the way for allegations and charges of fraud and mismanagement in the affairs of the house, and led to a long and bitter controversy in the Church. Fortunately, the business was not, as alleged, 'in a confused and chaotic, but in a decidedly understandable, shape,' enabling the referee, James P. Kilbreth, to ascertain and place before the General Conference the exact state of affairs from the books.' In the bindery alone were found irregularities and evidences of slight loss; but it is matter of wonder that in so large a business as the Book Concern has been doing for so many years, the frauds and irregularities, after scrutinizing examinations, are so small-smaller than would be found, on the average, in houses of equal business and employing as many persons.' In showing the general soundness of the Concern, and vindicating the integrity of the agents, the investigations were productive of good. The sole criticism of Dr. Porter's agency by the referee was the allowing of purchases through his son; but, even in this case, it was not claimed that the Book Room suffered the loss of a penny. The criticism' was a protest against nepotism, which, with a democratic Church, never fails to obtain favor."

On this passage of Dr. Sherman's article I remark:

1. "The unfortunate incident" referred to did not occur during Dr. Porter's term, but after his term had expired, and he had been succeeded by myself. It involved, however, the administration of Carlton & Porter, during a long series of years.

2. Mr. Kilbreth was in no proper sense a “referee.” A referee is one to whom parties at variance commit the settlement of matters in dispute. My colleague, Dr. Carlton, the most interested, because the most implicated, party, requested the Book Committee to "employ Mr. J. P. Kilbreth, of Cincinnati," to "examine the accounts of the Book Concern, and espe

"The Arena" is not a department for the discussion of old ecclesiastical and historical questions, nor can it be opened to articles requiring much space. The insertion of Dr. Lanahan's article is, therefore, an exception. Dr. Sherman's article contained a paragraph which Dr. Lanahan understood to be a misrepresentation of facts and impressions, and desired to be heard in reply. This is granted. As the Book Agents of that period, 1856-1868, are dead; as the two bishops involved in the proceedings of the Book Committee relative to Dr. Lanɛhan are dead; and as many of the Book Committee of that quadrennium, 1868-1872, are also dead, it would be unseemly to revive the controversy. This is not Dr. Lanahan's purpose. He merely wishes to correct erroneous statements touching himself and his administration: and, this being done, we must close the Review to further remarks on the subject.-EDITOR.

« PreviousContinue »