•leaiLiE-'VMViEissjnnr- iyiiBis^issr Bought with the income of the Ann S. Farnam Fund ADVERTISEMENT This series of ten volumes, each complete in itself, is designed to constitute a connected treat ment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. I. Introduction. (1907.) n. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical. (igo8.) HI. The Being and Attributes of God. (1909.) IV. The Trinity. (1910.) V. Creation and Man. (1912.) VI. The Incarnation. (1915-) VII. The Passion and Exaltation or Christ. (19 18.) VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. DC. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology: Indexes. It is hoped that the remaining volumes will be published at intervals of about eighteen months. AUTHORITY, ECCLESIASTICAL AND BIBLICAL 38p the Same author Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: crown 8vo. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical: crown 8vo. The Being and Attributes of God: crown 8vo. The Trinity : crown 8vo. Creation and Man : crown 8vo. The Incarnation : crown 8vo. The Kenotic Theory : Considered with particular refer ence to its Anglican forms and arguments; crown 8vo. Evolution and the Fall: Bishop Paddock Lectures, 1909-1910; crown 8vo. Theological Outlines — Three Volumes, i2mo. Vol. I. The Doctrine or God Vol. II. The Doctrine or Man and the God-Man Vol. III. The Doctrine of the Church and of Last Things The Historical Position of the Episcopal Church : i2mo, paper covers. The Bible and Modern Criticism: i2mo, paper AUTHORITY ECCLESIASTICAL AND BIBLICAL BY THE Rev. FRANCIS J. J3ALL, D.D. PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK CITY NE W IMPRESSION LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO FOURTH AVENUE & 30th ST., NEW YORK 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 1918 Copyright, 1908, by Longmans, Geeen, and Co. First Edition, March, 1908 Reprinted, March, 19X8 Mo-n %k V2. [Printed in the United States) Dedicate* TO THE SACRED MEMORY OF THE Rev. EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D. WHO DID MUCH TO REVIVE BELIEF IN THE VALUE OF AUTHORITY BOTH ECCLESIASTICAL AND BIBLICAL PREFACE In relation to the subject-matter of this volume, three conflicting points of view are in evidence at the present moment. They are distinguished by a more or less exclusive and one-sided emphasis which they place sev erally on one or other of three factors of spiritual knowl edge: (a) Ecclesiastical authority; (6) biblical authority; (c) reason. The result in each case is a disparagement and, at times, a sacrifice of the interest of the factors that are not emphasized. There is an attempt made in this volume to do propor tionate justice to all three of the factors which have been named, and to show that each is vital, along with super natural grace and experience, to success in attaining a true knowledge of God and of spiritual verities. In brief, the writer sympathizes with the emphasis in each case, whether it is placed upon ecclesiastical authority, or upon biblical authority, or upon reason. He believes, however, that the three tendencies need to be taken up into a larger and richer conception of the process of spiritual knowl edge and of the bases of certitude. A threefold cord is stronger than any one of its strands, and its strength Hes in the fact that the several strands are twined into one. Since the first edition of this book appeared in 1908, the ethic of subscription to the creeds by those who do not fully accept their propositions has received considerable attention. The "liberal" and "modernist" conten tions respectively are exhibited by Dr. Sanday, in Form viii PREFACE and Content in the Christian Tradition; and by Mr. Will Spens, in Belief and Practice. Dr. Sanday stresses the relativity of all human expression and the consequent non-finality, in his opinion, of all dogmatic propositions. His position is successfully combated in the same volume mentioned, by Mr. N. P. Williams; whose argument may well be supplemented, however, by the thought that, if Dr. Sanday's argument is valid, it disproves the final authority of the New Testament, including the doctrinal language of our Lord, as well as of Catholic dogma. Of recent publications in substantial accord with the positions maintained in this volume should be mentioned the late J. R. Illingworth's Divine Transcendence; Thomas B. Strong's very important pamphlet, The Miraculous in Gospels and Creeds; several of the Modem Oxford Tracts and the writer's pamphlet, The Bible and Modern Criticism. New York, March, 1918 CONTENTS CHAPTER I AUTHORITY IN GENERAL Part I. Nature, Forms and Bases § i. Aim in view. Four factors of spiritual knowledge § 2. Authority defined . . . . § 3. Forms of non-religious teaching authority § 4. Analogous forms in religion .... § 5.' Bases of authority : (a) Social relations . § 6. {b) Superior knowledge and expertness § 7. (c) Credentials from competent authority § 8. {d) Guidance and inspiration . § 9. (e) Supernatural revelation ..... PAGE 1 2 4 5 7 8 Part II. Relation of Authority to Other Factors § 10. Authority necessarily related to other factors ... 12 §11. Necessity of dependence upon reason 13 IS171920 § 12. Insufficiency of reason without authority .... § 13. Wunctions of reason : (a) To test the claim of authority § 14. {b) To verify authoritative teaching .... § 15. (c) To assimilate and apply such teaching • . § 16. Necessity and value of the factor of grace .... § 1 7. » The factor of personal experience. Prwamhdafidei . i 18. Verification and the limited sphere of direct verifica tion ... 25 26 § 19. Indirect verification . . . . " 29 X CONTENTS CHAPTER II OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS Part I. Objections PAGE i i. Re'sum6 32 § 2. Objections considered: (a) Alleged superfluity of au thority and impossibility of supernatural revelation . . 32 a § 3. {b) Alleged paralyzing effect of authority on reason . 37 § 4. (c) Alleged effect on immature minds. Bias . . 39 § 5. {d) Rational perception of truth said to be the real basis of knowledge 42 § 6. (e) Alleged non-necessity of authoritative doctrine for true religion 47 § 7. (/) Alleged fallibility of all authoritative teaching . 48 § 8. Reason not hampered by genuine infallibility of au thoritative teaching 49 Part II. Arguments for Authority $ § 9. (a) Dependence upon authority inevitable in fact and universal ... 51 1 10. (6) Necessary, if individual experience is to be trans cended 53 § 11. (c) Necessary for general progress 54 § 12. {d) Necessary for individual participation in civiliza tion 56 § 13. Tests to be applied to the claims of authority 57 CHAPTER III ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY Part I. Doctrinal Authority in General § 1. Doctrinal authority divided into divine and human, or into intrinsic and derivative . 63 CONTENTS xi PAGE § 2. Ecclesiastical and biblical authority, and their mutual relations . . 65 § 3. Subordinate forms of derivative authority. ... 69 Part II. Grounds of Ecclesiastical Authority § 4. Natural grounds .... 71 § 5. Supernatural grounds summarized 74 §6. Objection that our method of argument is circular. . 75 § 7. Grounds in detail: (a) The Lord's commission . . 78 § 8. (6) The promised guidance of the Holy Spirit . . 79 § 9. (c) The interior relation of the Body of Christ to Him self 80 Part HI. Ecclesiastical Infallibility § 10. Its nature in general 82 § 11. Is not intrinsic but derivative and limited in sphere . 85 § 12. Resides in the corporate body 86 § 13. Not in any particular agents, machinery or pro cedure 88 § 14. Objections against the possibility of ecclesiastical infallibility 90 § 15. Objections based on its alleged results .... 94 § 16. Indefectibility of the Church 100 CHAPTER IV THE DOGMATIC OFFICE Part I. Its Nature and History § 1. Methods of ecclesiastical teaching. The nature and effect of catholic dogmas 102 §2. Origin of the creeds. What dogmas are ecumenical . 103 § 3. The purpose of the Church's dogmatizing. Its consist ency with real freedom of thought 107 xii CONTENTS Part II. How Exercised PAGE § 4. By official agents, especially bishops, but in their repre sentative capacity ... i°9 § 5. By positive definition of impugned certainties, de signed to exclude heresy and guard tradition . . . in § 6. Catholic dogmas limited in range. Implicit and ex plicit faith "5 §7. The Church not silenced by her schisms "7 Part III. Tradition § 8. Tradition defined "8 §9. {a) Tradition by Scripture .... . . 119 § 10. (6) Oral tradition. The part of episcopal sees . . 121 § n. (c) Crystallization of tradition in ecumenical docu ments 123 § 12. {d) Patristic and later literature 124 § 13. (e) Tradition by institutions, especially the Eucha rist 126 § 14. The manifoldness of tradition affords security - . . 128 § 15. The purging of tradition 128 CHAPTER V COUNCILS AND POPES Part I. General Councils § 1. Resume" . 131 § 2. General Councils presumably authoritative, but re quire ratification 132 § 3. They are not infallible in themselves 132 § 4. May be repudiated lawfully by the Church. The distinction between General and Ecumenical Councils . 133 § 5. Temporary doubt as to a Council's authority not fatal . 135 § 6. The seven Ecumenical Councils and their decisions . 137 CONTENTS xiii Part II. Provincial Councils and Formularies page I 7- The authority of Provincial Councils 138 § 8. A survey of the more important ones. Their de cisions 140 I 9- The Anglican Articles of Religion 143 § 10. The Church Catechism 148 § 11. The twofold obligation of Anglicans in doctrine . . 149 Part III. The Papal See § 12. Our position denned 150 § 13. Human causes of the rise of papal power in the Church 151 § 14. The position of the Roman See in the Middle Ages providential 156 § 15. The real issue 156 § 16. Reasons for rejecting the Vatican claims: {a) They are non-primitive . 158 § 17. (6) They are unscriptural 160 § 18. (c) They fail to work 164 § 19. {d) They subvert the dogmatic office of the Church corporate 166 § 20. The Roman argument largely a priori 167 CHAPTER VI BIBLICAL AUTHORITY Part I. Inspiration § 1. Re"sum£. Premises 172 § 2. Diversity and unity of the Scriptures. The doctrine of inspiration summarized 173 § 3. {a) The inspiration of the sacred writers . . . .178 § 4. (6) The inspiration of prophetic and apostolic mes sages 183 XIV CONTENTS PAGE § 5. (c) The inspiration of the Bible qua Bible, or its divine authority 186 § 6. The formal ground of belief in biblical inspiration, or the Church's authentication 191 § 7. The canonical books 194 § 8. The material grounds of belief in biblical inspiration . 197 Part II. Theories of Inspiration § 9. The methods of inspiration of the sacred writers to be ascertained by examining Scripture .... 201 § 10. (a) The verbal or dictation theory 202 § n. (6) The theory that the res et sententim are alone inspired 205 § 12. (c) The naturalistic theory; and the view that in spiration, even if supernatural, is not confined to biblical writers 206 § 13. {d) The theory of selection 209 § 14. (e) The dynamic theory 211 § 15. The conclusion. Methods of inspiration too diverse to be defined by one formula 213 CHAPTER VII CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION Part I. Criticism § 1. The value and presuppositions of criticism . . . . 215 § 2. The task of criticism, and its subdivisions .... 217 § 3. (a) Textual criticism 218 § 4. (6) Literary criticism 221 § 5. (c) Historical and scientific criticism 225 § 6. Is inerrancy of the human writers essential to the inerrancy of the Bible qua Bible? 231 § 7. {d) Doctrinal and moral criticism 236 CONTENTS XV Part II. Interpretation page 5 8. Re'sume' 241 § 9. Holy Scripture a sphere of induction 242 § 10. Presuppositions: {a) The Church's faith sums up the fundamental meaning of Scripture as a whole . 243 § n. (6) No Scripture contradicts another in its divine purport 246 § 12. (c) The conscious meaning of the human writers is not necessarily the full meaning of Scripture. The task of "biblical theology" 247 §13. Methods of interpretation: {a) Literal or grammatical 249 § 14. (6) Tropical or figurative 250 1 15. (c) Mystical 251 CHAPTER VIII THE RULE OF FAITH Part I. Exposition § 1. The Rule stated. The Church teaches and defines, the Bible proves and illustrates 255 § 2. The Vincentian rule; designed for scholars who seek to verify the catholicity of current doctrines 258 § 3. The unscholarly have sufficient means of guidance to an orthodox faith 262 § 4. The Church's living voice, and its manner of utterance 266 Part II. Essentials and Non-Essentials ft § 5. Reasons for regarding all the catholic faith as essential 269 § 6. Degrees of centrality in revealed doctrine do not involve degrees in obligation to believe 269 § 7. Obligatory doctrines classified according to the man ner in which ecclesiastically imposed 272 § 8. Non -obligatory pious opinions or dubia classified . . 274 xvi CONTENTS CHAPTER IX THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE Part I. Legitimate Developments page § i. The sense in which catholic doctrine never changes, and the sense in which it develops 278 § 2. {a) Development by analysis of doctrine .... 281 § 3. (6) By elaboration of definitions and terminology to meet errors and new forms of thought 283 § 4. (c) By scientific co-ordination of doctrines with each other and with other human knowledge 285 § 5. {d) By consideration of the bearings of doctrines and their application to practical problems 286 Part II. Illegitimate Developments § 6. Necessity of distinguishing them 288 § 7. Illegitimate developments : {a) Such as enlarge the sub stance of obligatory doctrine 288 § 8. (6) Such as are based on isolated doctrines . . . 293 § 9. (c) Such as result from unregulated attempts to formu late complete systems of doctrine 294 § 10. {d) Such as modify the faith in order to harmonize it with scientific views 295 5 n. The equipment necessary for a successful develop ment of doctrine 299 § 12. Three primary tests of developments .... 299 AUTHORITY, ECCLESIASTICAL AND BIBLICAL CHAPTER I AUTHORITY IN GENERAL I. Nature Forms and Bases § i. It is a habit of many to look upon authority and reason as in obvious opposition; and "the very statement that the rival and opponent of authority is reason seems to most persons equivalent to a declara tion that the latter must be right, and the former in the wrong; while popular discussion and speculation have driven deep the general opinion that authority serves no other purpose in the economy of nature than to supply a refuge for all that is most bigoted and absurd." * In brief, authority is an intruder, and is to be shut out as making for unreason. 1 Balfour, Foundations of Belief, pp. 203-204. An admirable statement of the attitude of many towards authority and dogma is given by Bishop J. L. Spalding, in Means and Ends of Education, pp. 159-164. This age boasts of its spirit of tolerance, but there is a notable exception. As Bishop Spalding says, "Everything may be tolerated, if only the spirit of dogmatism is away." The false presupposition involved is that dogma necessarily interferes with the right to seek truth without hindrance. Among important recent attacks on the principle of authority in religion are Martineau's Seat of Authority in Religion; Aug. Saba- tier's Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit; and 2 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL ?We hope that a study of the first two chapters of this volume will convince thoughtful readers that the supposed opposition between authority, rightly em ployed, and reason does not exist; but that the prin ciple of authority is grounded in reason. It is, in brief, obedience to sound reason that causes us to depend upon authority in religion. » *Four factors are involved in the knowledge of divine things. Two of these are subjective, reason and super natural grace; and two of them are objective, external experience and authority.1 • Our dependence upon them is necessitated by the aim of attaining truth — not truth in the abstract, so much as truths that we need to know in order to live rightly, and to fulfil our chief end. It is essential, if we are to discover and assimilate such truths rightly, that each of the four factors we have mentioned should be given its due part in our acquisition of spiritual knowledge. The principles of due propor tion and right relation, and the necessity of being dominated by the aim of truth-seeking, constitute fundamental presuppositions of this volume. § 2. /The term authority is employed in two very distinct although related meanings. On the one hand Reville's Liberal Christianity. V. H. Stanton's Place of Authority in Matters of Religious Belief, and T. B. Strong's Authority in the Church, are useful manuals of the right kind. The subject is dis cussed incidentally, or referred to, by almost every writer on religious topics. For a select bibliography on ecclesiastical authority, see below, p. 65, note i. For completeness' sake we shall be obliged to repeat in this volume some of the considerations contained in our Introd. to Dog. Theol. 1 See Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. iv. § i, pp. 84-87. NATURE FORMS AND BASES 3 it is related to practice; and in that relation it signifies the right, whether based upon compact or upon deeper grounds, to regulate, within the sphere of its legitimacy, the conduct of those who are subject to it. On the other hand, authority is related to the ac quisition of truth; and in that relation it signifies an external source of information, ultimately personal, and concerned with matters that lie beyond the present observation and previous experience of those who depend upon it. To depend upon authority means to accept the testimony and teaching of others, at least for the time being, in matters not made known by our own previous experience and reason.1 * Authoritative teachings may be derived immediately from tradition or from some documentary source. In this case the term authority is extended in appli cation to such immediate source. But the ultimate source of authoritative teaching is personal, and external to those who depend upon it.2 Stanton, Place of Authority, p. 12, says: "We may define 'Authority,' for the purposes of the present discussion, as that prin ciple which is exhibited in all reasons for receiving or assenting to a truth, if such there be, which are external to the man himself, to his own observation, reasoning, or intuition, or which, if revealed internally, lie beyond the reach of his own verification." He means, of course, direct verification. See Fleming, Vocab. of Philos., s. v. "Authority"; Murray, New Eng. Die., s. v. "Author" and "Author ity." 2 The word authority is sometimes used loosely in such phrases as "the authority of conscience" (Butler's Sermons on Hum. Nature), and "The authority of reason" (by many modern writers). But, strictly speaking, authority involves dependence upon authors, so to speak, other than ourselves. Conscience binds, for it is our best 4 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL It is inevitable that authority in practice should often be combined with teaching authority. This is so in educational authority, for education includes more than a mere imparting of knowledge. And knowledge that bears on practice cannot be imparted successfully, unless some degree of training is given in the exer cises and practices which have to do with assimila tion and practical application of what is imparted.1 § 3. In ordinary branches of knowledge we depend upon various forms of authority, {a) Little children re ceive the first elements of knowledge very largely from their parents and elders, {b) At a slightly later stage they gain further knowledge from teachers at school, (c) And at school they come to depend upon the authority of text-books, wherein is summarized the knowledge which has been made available by the investigations and pronouncements of scientific scholars. The au- judgment of right and wrong; and reason may not be violated in our conclusions; but they are both subjective. Authority exhibits itself to our minds and consciences externally and objectively. 1 Salmon distinguishes between official authority to decide ques tions for practice, which depends upon office entirely; and authority grounded in superior knowledge, which is consulted on that ground. Infallibility, pp. 177-179. Also between the authority of a com petent captain or physician, to whom we commit ourselves without learning his art; and that of a teacher over students who are seeking to become experts themselves. Ibid. pp. 51-52, 116. The authority of captains and physicians combines the theoretical and practical in a peculiarly obvious way. The Church possesses both the authority of a physician of souls, and that of a teacher of those who seek to become wise in spiritual things. The relation of authority to outward order, based on discipleship and representative, is dis cussed by T. B. Strong, Authority, ch. v. NATURE FORMS AND BASES 5 thority of scientists continues to be deferred to in adult years.1 {d) There is also the authority of com mon judgment concerning many things, both theoretical and practical, to which all wise men, to some extent at least, defer. This common judgment exhibits the generally accepted results of the accumulated experi ence of mankind, or of the race or races in whose civilization the individuals concerned participate. Authority is found in eminent degree in the sphere of morality. The judgments of individual consciences are determined very largely by instruction received from parents and other teachers in childhood, and also by common judgment. This need not involve a failure of conscience to exercise its own judgment, or an acceptance of the moral judgments of external authority when inconsistent with the judgments of the individual's own conscience. The function of teaching authority in the moral sphere is educative, and has to do with enlightening, and to that extent with determining, the judgment of conscience itself. Authority is not entitled to displace the judgment of an individual conscience.2 § 4. Unless the principles that hold good in the acquisition of truth in general are to be abandoned in religion, we should expect to find similar forms of authority in the sphere of divine truth. (a) Thus in well-ordered circles the child depends 1 On authority in science, see Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 10-24. 2 On authority in morality, see Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 24-28. 6 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL upon catechetical instruction for its first knowledge of divine things — the instruction of parents, sponsors, and other appointed teachers.1 {b) Such instruction is followed up by pastoral teaching, whether in cate chetical form or from the pulpit.2 (c) This teaching is determined and, if need be, corrected, by the teaching of the Church, under whose appointment and author ity the pastor ministers; and ecclesiastical authority represents partly the common judgment of the faith ful, but especially, the authority of divine revelation, the contents of which are committed to the Church for propagation and preservation from age to age. {d) But the teaching of the Church is corroborated by the Sacred Scriptures, which constitute the documentary evidence that the Church continues to teach in sub stance what was revealed to her in pentecostal days. It is to be observed that, from the standpoint of historical Christianity, the teaching of divine truth depends ultimately for its earthly sanction upon the joint authority of the Church and the Bible, which in turn represents the authority of God Himself, who is the supreme source of authority. This agrees with what we have maintained, that authority is ultimately personal. It is also to be observed that ecclesiastical and biblical authority, unlike other forms of authority, are based upon supernatural sanctions. 1 Deut. vi. 7; Prov. xxii. 6; Ephes. vi. 4. Our Lord submitted to receive the instruction of teachers in childhood. St. Luke ii. 46. 2 See the exhortation to the Godfathers and Godmothers in the Office of Baptism — "Ye shall call upon him to hear sermons." NATURE FORMS AND BASES 7 § 5. This brings us to the general subject of the bases of authority, or the grounds upon which we accept it. (a) All authority, or rather our acceptance of it, is based upon social relations.1 The teacher and the taught share in a common nature and in common in terests, which require truthfulness and mutual trust for their advancement. In trusting others we trust those who possess our own capacity to master and communi cate truth, and our own interest in truth.2 The reason wherewith our teachers distinguish truth from error is essentially our own reason, and in accepting their wit ness we assume, whether consciously or no, that, if we had their experience, we should arrive at their conclu sions. We indeed distinguish the opportunities, the capacity and the honesty of witnesses; but, on the whole, it is natural for us to assume that, in accepting the teaching of others, we are accepting what our own rea son would confirm if we possessed their advantages.3 1 Sabatier finds the roots of authority in the "organic conditions of the life of the species." Religions of Authority, p. xxi. Reville says that instruction and civilization are made possible by human soli darity. Liberal Christianity, pp. 90-103. Balfour treats this aspect of authority, as differentiating men from animals. Foundations of Belief, p. 238. Cf. Strong, Authority, pp. 3 et seq.; Illingworth, Reason and Revel., pp. 208-213; Flint, Agnosticism, pp. 526-531. Sterrett, in The Freedom of Authority, exhibits the part of social heredity and transmission of accumulated belief and knowledge in the development of individuals. 2 Stanton shows, Authority, pp. 53-66, that Christian conscious ness makes its participants defer to common consent by reason of a common point of view, due to the social relations within the Church corporate. Cf. Strong, Authority, pp. 32-34. 3 This is especially the case in matters of general consent. Cicero's 8 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL The same warrant holds good in dependence upon divine authority, whether immediate or derivative. We are made in the image of God, and the reason wherewith we attain to truth has its source and per fection in God Himself. We trust our own reason, in spite of its imperfection, and therefore trust that same reason in God, recognizing that its perfection in Him makes His knowledge more secure and trustworthy than ours. The fact is that the perfection of His wisdom, and His truthfulness, make the authority of God abso lute. He can neither err nor He; and when we know that any teaching is really divine we also know that it cannot be rejected without stultifying reason itself. Such teaching is determined by absolute reason and is the ultimate source of truth for us.1 § 6 (6) The possession of superior information, within the sphere of its exercise, is a basis of authority. The simplest instances of this are found in the domain of fact. Even those who are less experienced than our selves, generally speaking, are often in possession of knowledge concerning events which we cannot acquire at all except through their testimony. To reject this remark is classic, "that opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true." De Natura Deorum, I. xvii. Cf. Seneca, Epis. 117. On this subject see McLaren, Cath. Dogma the Antidote of Doubt, ch. xv. 1 Trust in God is the presupposition of all other trust: e.g. in the rationality and uniformity of nature, and in our fellow men. Illingworth, Reason and Revel., pp. 213-220. See Scudamore, Office of the Intellect in Relig., pp. 123 et seq., on the participation of human reason in the divine. He gives a valuable series of patristic citations. NATURE FORMS AND BASES g testimony, when we have no just reason to suspect either the capacity of witnesses to observe and testify cor rectly, or their honesty, is not in accordance with sound reason and sober judgment. No historical science would be possible, if we rejected such authority gen erally. And even when we have reason to consider our authorities to be inaccurate in details, we often in some measure depend upon them, and that reasonably.1 But we depend upon authority in wider spheres of knowledge than of mere fact or event. We recog nize a certain authority in those who are qualified by superior intelligence or by peculiar expertness in a given department of knowledge. We rightly depend upon their testimony in matters that involve inference and judgment as well as personal experience. Thus we often accept the judgment of a qualified historian, even when it goes counter in some respects to the testimony of contemporary witnesses; and the gen eralizations of natural scientists are accepted, even when the data upon which they are based are known to be far from sufficient to demonstrate the conclusions set forth.2 This holds good in the sphere of religious truth. We 1 In judicial procedure juries are necessarily dependent upon the . testimony offered; and that in spite both of the very unequal intelli gence and capacity of witnesses, and the possibility that this testimony may cause them to inflict the death penalty on an innocent person. 1 The evolutionary hypothesis now holds the field among physical scientists. But it is held only as capable of standing such tests as can be applied in the existing state of knowledge, — in short, as the best available working hypothesis. See James Sully, in Encyc. Brit. s. v. "Evolution," p. 770, second column. 10 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL not only accept the testimony of the chosen witnesses to the fact that our Lord rose again from the tomb on the third day, but we defer in spiritual things generally to the authority of those whom we recognize to be pe culiarly expert in such matters. This deference reaches its climax when we have reason to believe that such persons are especially guided to speak rightly by God Himself. This is so because we can put no limit either to the knowledge or to the wisdom of God; and, as has been said, any teaching that is believed to be divine in its ultimate source is rightly accepted as having final authority.1 § 7. (c) This suggests a third basis of authority — an exhibition by messengers of sufficient credentials from those whose authority is already recognized on other grounds. Such credentials justify our acceptance of the message thus accredited as coming from a trust worthy source. The immediate authority in this case is derivative, but not less real on that account. And messages may come not only through personal messen gers, but also through letters or other literary media. Illustrations will occur to every reader within his own experience, and in every department of life. Peace between nations and other international interests hinge in many instances upon dependence on the derivative anthority of duly accredited ambassadors. Many 1 The uncertainties that may attend our belief in the divine source of teaching ought not to alter this practical result. For surely we may not reasonably turn from what seems to have final authority to what seems to be erroneous, and neutrality in relation to truths that determine righteousness is equivalent to their rejection. NATURE FORMS AND BASES u other important concerns would suffer constantly, if duly accredited messages were not depended upon habitually by those to whom they are sent. The apostles were not only witnesses of the events of the Gospel narratives, but also messengers charged with teaching which they had received from a higher source. And their teaching was received on the authority of Him who sent them forth. This teach ing was to be handed on through subsequent ages; and the Church with her ministry was appointed, among other reasons, in order that the original message might continue to be delivered to every generation.1 The contents of this message were also embodied, whether explicitly or implicitly, in Sacred Scriptures; and these Scriptures possess the same derivative authority of a message from God.2 § 8. {d) A fourth basis of authority is guidance. It frequently occurs that the language of one who is known to be in constant contact with a superior, and under his influence, is accepted as reflecting the mind of his su perior, and as having a certain authoritative value on that account. Thus a member of the American Cabinet is supposed, when speaking on questions of executive 1 The personal agents through whom the apostolic message has been transmitted are indeed fallible. But divine faith rests upon divine veracity, even when we depend on fallible men for knowledge of what God has revealed. Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 80-82. It is also to be remembered that the Catholic Church, as we shall explain in chapter iii, enjoys supernatural protection in her teach ing office; and the continued sameness of her primary teaching can be verified by the ancient documents of Holy Scripture. 2 See ch. vi., below, on Biblical Authority. 12 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL policy, to represent the mind of the President; and a British privy councillor's utteranceson the public rostrum are apt to be reckoned as inspired from headquarters. Such authority is found both in Church and Scrip ture. The Church claims to be guided in her dog matic teaching by the Holy Spirit, and it is an axiom of catholic theology that the Sacred Scriptures are the fruit of divine inspiration.1 § 9. (e) Finally, supernatural revelation is the chief formal basis of our acceptance of authority in the sphere of divine truth. Whatever is taught by the Church as necessary to be believed for salvation, and confirmed by the Sacred Scriptures, is accepted be cause believed to have come from God Himself, and to have been made known by supernatural means. We do not intend to imply that no revelation comes from God except by supernatural means; but simply this, that supernatural revelation has an articulate definiteness, and a special content and significance, which gives it a unique formal value and interpretive function in all our knowledge of divine truth.2 II. Relation of Authority to Other Factors of Knowledge § 10. Some of the most central and vital elements of spiritual knowledge cannot be known at all except 1 The Church's guidance is considered below, in ch. iii. § 8; the inspiration of Scripture in ch. vi. 2 We have treated of this in Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. ii., espec. Pt. II. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 13 on the basis of authoritative teaching. And no progress of ours can emancipate us from dependence upon such teaching in these matters. But we shall err greatly, if we suppose that the promulgation of authoritative definitions of truth is sufficient of itself to secure in us the knowledge intended to be secured by such means. The authority must be accepted; but truth that is not assimilated by the mind remains as useless to us as if taught in an unknown language,1 and truth that is not related, to some extent at least, to our reason and experience must remain absolutely unintelligible.2 It remains then that a proper dependence on au thority includes the exercises of our rational faculties, which in divine things requires in turn the assistance of supernatural grace. Moreover, the truths of divine revelation are not isolated propositions, but are vitally related to life and to our general experience and knowl edge. To understand the subject of authority, there fore, we have need to consider it in relation to reason, to supernatural grace, and to experience. § 11. The reader of the previous volume in this series will not suspect the writer of sacrificing the claims 1 Some writers against ecclesiastical infallibility ignore this dis tinction, when they make the Church's claim to depend for its truth on her success in communicating orthodox belief to all — as if to teach infallibly meant to secure infallible disciples. We return to this. See ch. iii. § 14 (e). 2 Martineau uses this fact to invalidate external authority in religion. So also Sabatier and ReVille. They confuse the factor of teaching with that of perception of truth by the taught. See below, ch. ii. §§ 5, 6. 14 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL of reason in the sphere of spiritual things.1 We were endowed with reason by God Himself, and we may be certain, therefore, that when our reason is exercised in accordance with its proper nature, the nature which God has given it, it is to be trusted within its sphere and capacity. Moreover, we are made in the image of God; and we have abundant grounds for the conviction that our possession of reason is the property which likens us to our Creator.2 In short, our reason is that in us which participates in the divine nature, in the divine reason. To mistrust reason, rightly exercised, is to weaken a primary basis of trust in God. We trust in Him be cause we find in Him the reason which we trust in our selves, but without its finite limitations.3 Finally, the acceptance of any proposition whatso ever is an act of the reason. No doubt it is an act wherein our whole psychical nature is involved. Bare intellectuality cannot appropriate truth rightly in any 1 See Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. iv. For further references show ing that the appeal to spiritually enlightened reason is characteristic of Christianity, see the same chapter, note, on pp. 91, 92. 2 See Bull's Discourse on the Primitive State, pp. 112-121; Liddon's Some Elements, p. 86; Thos. Strong's Man. of Theol., pp. 238-240; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. pp. 392, 393. Biblical teach ing is seen in Gen. i. 26, 27; ix. 6. Cf. Wisdom ii. 23. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, p. 238, points out that man is even more obviously distinguished from the brute by his recognition of authority than by his possession of rationality. The latter, we add, is charac teristic, indeed, and makes possible the former. This appears in the fact that infants begin by yielding to power, and only learn to defer to authority as their rational capacity develops. 8 Cf. 2 St. Pet. i. 4. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 15 sphere. But the reason must be exercised, and a proposition seen to be irrational cannot be accepted or assimilated in any proper sense of terms. It is to be insisted upon, therefore, that no authority is legitimate which is so related to our minds as to subvert, stultify, or bar the exercise of reason. The proper function of authority is indeed to emancipate reason, by affording trustworthy data for its considera tion and secure premises for its deductions. Authorita tive propositions do not constitute a vault within which reason is to be confined, but rather a foundation on which reason can build securely. The more firm and extended the foundation of assured truth is, the more glorious is the structure of sound logic and valid thought that can be superimposed. This is generally acknowl edged in other spheres of reason than the spiritual.1 § 12. Reason does not create truth, but weighs, assimilates, and applies the data which are objectively afforded for its consideration.2 Two sources of its data may be distinguished: personal experience and authority. And since all truth is mutually related, the data thus derived are also related to each other and are more or less mutually interpretive. Neither the data of personal experience nor those derived from authoritative sources are complete of 1 St. John viii. 31, 32. "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." See Liddon, Univ. Serms., 1st series, iv, pp. 67-68; Meyrick, Is Dogma a Necessity? pp. 153-156; Illingworth, Reason and Revel., pp. 6, 7. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 105-107. 1 See Strong, Authority, pp. 25, 26. 16 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL themselves. If each individual were limited to the data of his personal experience, the functions of reason would be seriously limited, and permanent progress of the race would be impossible.1 We see partial illustrations of the limitations of individual experience in "self-educated" men. The illustration is partial only, for even a self-educated man derives much knowl edge from reading and from other avenues of authorita tive teaching. But a man is called "self-educated" because he has not secured the help of those whose profession is to transmit correctly a wider knowledge than individual experience affords. We all recognize that such an one is at a disadvantage in the higher realms of thought ; and a proof of this is found in the fact that, when he becomes an intellectual force in the community, he is generally considered to deserve especial praise for his achievement. It is clear (a) that reason depends upon authority for knowledge of data lying beyond personal experience — data accumulated by the generations gone by, whether by natural experience or by supernatural revelation; {b) also, that no progress in knowledge is possible without dependence upon authority, beyond what can be made by an untutored innocent within the period of a life time; (c)it ought not to need proof, thirdly, that much of the knowledge gained through authority is essential to the practical welfare both of private individuals and of the community; {d) finally, it should be evident that mutual co-operation in the various practical concerns of 1 See Strong, Authority, pp. 20, 21. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 17 life, in short a working civilization, depends upon the general acceptance of principles and elements of knowl edge which ordinary folk are unable to discover for them selves, but must accept on authority; and this holds good in religious co-operation or ecclesiastical organization. § 13. But, if reason has need of authority, so like wise does the validity and utility of authority depend upon reason. They cannot safely be divorced or set at war with each other, although their respective func tions, objective and subjective, ought carefully to be distinguished and respected. Reason may be said to have three functions in relation to authority: (a) to justify our acceptance of authority; {b) to verify au thoritative teaching, so far as it can be verified; (c) to assimilate and apply it. {d) We do not depend upon authority against reason, but in accordance with reason. To accept any teach ing whatever when it is seen to be contrary to sound reason is to sink below the human level, and indi rectly to impugn reason at its divine source. Our dependence on authority must be reasonable, therefore, in order to be justifiable.1 No doubt the number of •Thorndike says, Prins. of Christian Truth, Li. 5: "Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe; but not standing upon evidence of the thing, but upon credit of report," etc. Cf. I. i. 7, 8; and McLaren, Cath. Dogma, p. 21. Moberly says, Lux Mundi, pp. 222, 223, "There is no proper antithesis between believing in deference to authority, and believing in deference to reason, unless it be under stood that the authority believed in was accepted at first as authority without reason, or maintained in spite of the subsequent refusal of reason to give confirmatory witness to its assertions." See Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 38-52. 3 18 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL those who can define intelligently and persuasively the reasons for their deference to authority is relatively small. But this does not show that dependence upon authority is irrational. It shows that the majority of men are more capable of acting rationally in the con crete than of showing that they have done so in the abstract. Men are guided to a large extent by implicit reason. Thus children act rationally when they de pend upon the teaching of their elders, and none the less so because incapable of reasoning the matter out articulately.1 Yet the claim of any authority must be capable of standing the test of enlightened reason, whenever the time arrives or the conditions exist that call for such testing. And authority in rehgion is not exempt from this requirement. The New Testament itself tells us to test all things and to hold fast that which is good.2 It is a primary obligation of creatures always to seek the truth; and this aim involves, sooner or later, that, according to our ability, we should test the credibility of authority, and satisfy ourselves that our acceptance of its teaching is helpful in arriving at truth.3 It is of course a fact that the credibility of an author ity which is charged with spiritual teaching cannot be weighed rightly except by a spiritually enlightened judgment.4 And it should be realized that the capac- 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 104, 105. 2 1 Thess. v. 21. • Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., p. 107. * See § 16 of this chapter. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. v. § 13. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 19 ity fully to test the claim of such authority is pos sessed only by those who have been built up spiritually on the basis of that very dependence on authority which is to be tested. But this means nothing more after all than the common-sense principle that everything is to be tested in its own manner; which includes putting practical hypotheses to the test of their working value. Those who try an authority-system practically are the ones who are able to test it most adequately and justly.1 § 14. (6) A second function of reason in relation to authority is verification of the truth of its teaching, when and so far as verification is possible. As this subject will have to be considered in relation to the factor of experience,2 we content ourselves here with insisting that we ought to verify revealed truth, so far as it can be verified, not only in order to fortify our own faith and enrich our knowledge of divine things, but also that we may afford to others reasons for the hope that is in us,3 and persuade them, if pos sible, of divine truth. This pertains especially to apologetical theology. It is true that men cannot be convinced of Christian truth by mere reason.4 But 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 100-111; showing that the objective criterion of knowledge is its working value: also pp. 157-159, in which the theological consensus of those who accept ecclesiastical authority in practice is contrasted with the dissidence elsewhere prevalent. 2 See below, §§ 18, 19. 3 1 St. Pet. iii. 15. • Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. v. §§ 15-16, on the process and laws of faith. 20 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL the exhibition of reasons that justify belief is none the less necessary, if those who are brought to believe by the Spirit are to acquire an intelligent faith — are to believe with their understanding as well as with their spirit. § 15. (c) Finally, it is a function of reason to assimi late and apply practically the teaching of authority. In the first place, the contents of such teaching have to be mastered exactly. No doubt we shall soon reach the limits of precise definition when dealing with divine mysteries. But we can and ought to form definite con ceptions of so much as has been revealed to us, even though that may be less than we should like to know, and fragmentary.1 Then we need to analyze authoritative teaching, in order to realize as articulately as possible its full con tent and implications. The value of teaching is prac tically nullified when its recipients do not ponder over it and endeavour to enter upon all its meaning in de tail.2 Revealed truth may be likened to the heavenly 1 What Liddon says with reference to Schleiermacher's view — "that religion has nothing to do with intellectual skill in projecting definitions, and that it is at the bottom a feeling of tranquil depend ence upon some higher Power," — is relevant: Divinity of our Lord, pp. 3-5. "Religion, to support itself, must rest consciously on its object: the intellectual apprehension of that object as true is an integral element of religion. In other words, religion is practically inseparable from theology." A theology without definitions is an absurdity. 2 The development of doctrine is the result of this and other exercises of reason on the contents of the original faith. See chap. ix. Pt. I. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 21 bodies, which need to be studied often and laboriously by many experts before an astronomy worthy of the name can be developed. The words that were once for all uttered of old grow ever richer in meaning by means of the devout studies of successive genera tions of theologians; and their progress is due to a full exercise of reason, enlightened, of course, by grace. Again, reason has to be exercised, if we are to appreciate the practical bearing and value of authorita tive teaching. Knowledge which is purely abstract has but little value, save for the development of mental power. What inspires modern scientists is no mere intellectual curiosity, but at least an implicit realiza tion that a wider knowledge of natural law means greater opportunity to subordinate natural forces to human uses. So it is with revealed truth. Enlightened reason is able to detect something richer and more valuable in dogmatic truth than a series of abstract propositions, imposed upon men to believe but unre lated to life. Divine truths have worth-values,1 and 1 The Ritschlian emphasis on "worth values" is not wholly false, but misdirected. What seems to have the worth- value of truth to a spiritually enlightened understanding acquires thereby a presumptive probability. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 102-103, and note 1, p. 103; also p. 131, note 1, where further references are given. Pragmatism, a very recent modification of the Ritschlian view, interprets each notion by tracing its practical consequences. "Theories become instruments, not answers to enigmas, in which we can rest." The truth of ideas is identified with their power to work, their practical worth-value. Truth "is one species of good, and not ... a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it." "The facts ... are not true. They simply are. Truth is the 22 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL no one has fully apprehended them until their worth- values are appreciated. Moreover, it is reason's func tion to apply authoritative teaching, and all knowledge as well, to the actual guidance of life and to the practical needs of men. This work has been done of late with brilliant success in the physical sphere. The amazing series of inventions that have transformed the external conditions of life in our age are so many instances of the exercise of this function of reason. The task of moral theologians and pastors is analogous, although with su perficial differences. Divine truths have to be treated by them as truths by which to live, and as enabling us so to live in this present world as to advance to our chief end, and attain to everlasting blessedness. Unless enlightened reason is enlisted abundantly in solving the spiritual problems of actual every-day life in the light of revealed truth, such truth remains more or less cryptic and useless. The purpose of revelation is thwarted.1 § 1 6. Supernatural grace is also a necessary factor function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them." See James, Pragmatism, passim. He says that Dewey's Studies in Logical Theory gives the foundation of the system, but commends especially Schiller's Studies in Humanism, for clear exposition. The point of departure, and the fallacy, of pragmatism, is its neologian use of the word "truth." James concedes that facts are. Truth is the quality of propositions which correctly define the things that are, irrespectively of their use or goodness. The moral issue raised by pragmatism is the right and duty to make our beliefs agree with what is, i.e. possess objective truth. •The application of reason to the task of applying divine truth practically is one of the chief lines of legitimate development of doctrine. See below, ch. ix. J 5. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 23 in the knowledge of divine things, and the relation of authority to it is important. Teaching is conditioned for its success, as we have seen, by subjective assimila tion on the part of its recipients. Even the teaching of infallible authority cannot of itself guarantee success in imparting truth to individual minds.1 This fact has been mistakenly employed to prove that external authority has no place in religion.2 In reality, it only proves this, that individuals cannot profit by the teach ing of authority unless they fulfil the conditions re quired for its successful appropriation. As has been shown above, this subjective appropria tion is the function of reason, exercised by moral agents, in whom, it should be added, intellectual, emotional, and voHtional faculties always act together. But reason is handicapped in the consideration of spiritual things by an evil heredity, the spiritual wound of blindness as it is called in Dogmatic Theology.3 Moreover, 1 See below, ch. iii. § 15 (d). Infallible authority should not be confused with infallible guidance. Salmon betrays such confusion of thought repeatedly in his Infallibility of the Church, and his argu ments against ecclesiastical, as distinguished from papal, infallibility derive the most of their plausibility from this mistake. 2 For example, by Martineau. See below, ch. iii. § 5. 2 That we all inherit instincts and tendencies that interfere with the laying hold of higher things, unless brought under by careful self-discipline, is not denied by any considerable number of con temporary thinkers. The difference lies in men's view of the origin of this heredity. Whereas catholic doctrine traces it to a fall from primitive innocency and grace, modern liberals and materialistic biologists regard it exclusively as the survival of an earlier stage in the evolution of the human species, not fully outgrown. So ReVille, to give an example, Liberal Christianity, pp. 85-86. 24 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL truths that require supernatural means for their revela tion cannot be assimilated adequately without corre sponding supernatural assistance to the reason. None can know the deep things of God except the Spirit of God and those to whom the Spirit makes them known interiorly. In short, spiritual things are discerned spiritually; x and this means partly by the right order ing of all our faculties,2 and partly by their supernatural enlightenment and enhancement. Thus divine grace, or the reason as assisted thereby, is the subjective correlative of supernatural revelation.3 The effect of grace upon reason is twofold, corrective and enhancing. It is corrective in that it sanctifies the soul interiorly, that is when co-operated with by the will, restores the harmony of the faculties, and clarifies the spiritual vision by eliminating the distractions which are due to absorption in carnal desires and in terests. Grace also enhances the reason by communicating a supernatural capacity, grounded in a regenerate life in Christ. The spiritual gift of understanding enables the mind to penetrate more deeply than is otherwise 1 1 Cor. ii. 9-14. ' AvaKptverai, in verse 14, means literally judged, or examined. 2 In technical theology the right mutual adjustment and ordering of human faculties is called "integrity." This is said to have been a factor in Adam's original righteousness which was destroyed by sin. 3Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 87, 99-101, 132-134, 138-141 242-247. See Jackson's Works, Bk. V. ch. ix; Scudamore, Office of the Intellect in Relig., passim; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. ch. i. § 42. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 25 possible into divine mysteries, and the gift of wisdom enhances our perception of the bearing and likelihood of what is revealed.1 But the gifts of grace are endowments of our reason, not substitutes for it. They do not alter its laws, but enhance its capacity for receiving divine mysteries. A recovery of physical health may incidentally cure defec tive senses, and brighter light clarifies our vision. But the same senses are exercised under the improved conditions, and they become more rather than less trustworthy. Similarly the use of a glass enables our eyes to see what is beyond the range of unaided vision. But our eyes are not altered in their struc ture or operation, and they become more trustworthy with the enhancement of their power. As Bishop Butler says, reason "is the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even revela tion itself";2 and supernatural assistance does but clarify reason and make it more capable and secure in operation, without in the least altering or subverting the laws of its activity.3 In fact the work of grace is to enrich our reason from its creative source, to assimi late it to its perfect archetype. § 1 7.** Personal experience is also a necessary factor in the knowledge of what is taught by authority. Thus, in the first place, knowledge gained by previous 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., p. 244; Ewer, Holy Spirit, Conf. iv; Hutchings, Holy Ghost, pp. 192-206, 244-247, 265-272. 2 Analogy, Pt. II. ch. iii. See Introd. to Dog. Theol., p. 88. 2 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, pp. 87 (g), 88, 132. 26 AUTHORITY EST GENERAL experience enables us to become intelligent recipients of authoritative teaching, and we grow more intelligent as pupils in the proportion that our experience grows richer. Experience, with our reflection thereon, sup plies our minds with certain elementary conceptions that are presupposed in authoritative teaching, with a point of view which facilitates our reception of it.# Thus in religion our experience furnishes us with praambula fidei, as they are called,1 or premises dis coverable by an enlightened consideration of nature and man, which constitute fundamental presuppositions and interpretive principles of revelation. These are the truths of what is called natural theology, such as the be ing of God, human responsibility, and the future life.2 • Then, too, experience affords the data by which the reason is enabled to exercise its functions in relation to authoritative teaching: of verifying, whether directly or indirectly, and of mastering its bearing, and prac tically applying. This is a commonplace in secular knowledge, and it holds equally in spiritual knowledge. The difference is that the experience which bears on revealed truth is primarily spiritual, as is also the manner in which we employ it. i § 1 8. The impulse which all feel who are desirous of arriving at truth, to verify authoritative teaching by other means of information, is a proper impulse, and entirely consistent with due dependence upon au- 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., p. 138. 2 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, pp. 151-159, on presuppositions and their necessity. RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 27 thority. It need not spring from an unteachable disposition, but is properly grounded in a desire to strengthen and enrich one's grasp on truth by every available means.1 Nothing is credible to a thoughtful and enhghtened mind which appears to be wholly unrelated to the con tents of human experience at large. All genuine truths are mutually related ultimately and are harmonious, for truth is in its totality one and organic. One truth cannot really conflict with another truth.2 No doubt the relations between one truth and another are often remote and indirect, and require careful consideration before even their existence becomes apparent. But the general tendency to doubt the truth of a proposition which cannot be related by enhghtened reason to any of the contents of experience is instinctive and sound. 1 See above, § 14. It is mentioned to the credit of the Beceans that their "readiness of mind" in receiving the authoritative teach ing of St. Paul caused them to search the Scriptures — i.e. another source of information — "whether those things were so." Acts xvii. 11. It is not merely in the ancient prophets that God has spoken "in many portions and in many manners," Heb. i. 1, but also through the avenues of natural experience. Our knowledge, even of things supernaturally revealed, will remain impoverished if we forget this. 2 The Ritschlian refusal to consider religious truth as related in any way to scientific truth, violates this axiom; and the limiting of the truth of religious propositions to their worth-value implies their untruth in the objective sphere. If Christ, for instance, had only the worth-value of God, He is not God at all. That the irra tional means the unrelated, see an illuminating article on "Liberal Theology," in the Church Quarterly Review for January, 1906. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, p. 55 and note 1 in loc; Spencer, First Principles, Pt. I. ch. i. § 6. 28 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL Verification means finding evidence, more or less convincing, that a given proposition is related to knowl edge gained through other channels, and in such wise as to justify our acceptance of it as credible.1 Verifica tion has many degrees of fulness and usuaUy falls short of complete demonstration. Often its success consists merely in finding a rational place for the teaching of authority, one that enables us to accept it on authority simply, without disturbing our continued acceptance of the contents of experience at large. Direct verification brings with it a certain amount of proof that the proposition verified is true. It is confined to facts and generalizations of facts, or laws. A statement of fact may He beyond verification by our own experience, because belonging wholly to the past. In such case verification is accompHshed by comparing several lines of testimony, and by discovering agreement between several credible authorities. If we depend upon only one witness, no direct verification is possible. 1 See Baldwin, Die. of Philos., s. v. "Verification." A verifiable hypothesis is there defined as "one which presents an abundance of necessary consequences open to experimental test." Christian doc trine is not only a body of revealed truth, but may be treated as a general hypothesis which involves a multitude of practical conse quences. By spiritual experiment, therefore, we can ascertain whether these consequences are such as seem likely to be realized as the result of obedience to truth. The general credibility of Chris tian doctrines, thus verified, and their internal coherence, serve to make their essential particulars also credible. Cf. Moberly, in Lux Mundi, pp. 220-224; Strong, Authority, pp. 114-116. Every line of the internal evidences of Christianity is a line of verification of its authoritative teaching. See Fisher, Grounds of Belief, revised ed., pp. 89-90, 142-143- RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 29 If the fact in question is a continuing fact, or one that occurs repeatedly, and occurs within our own sphere of observation, direct verification is very simple, although we may have to resort to artificial experi ments to bring the fact within our experience. The laws of physical science define such facts, and are subject to this kind of verification. It is a Hmitation of some scientists that, through long habit of dependence upon the laboratory, they have come to disparage and even to deny the vaHdity of any other than physical verification, although they continue to accept practically many propositions that cannot thus be verified — for example, much of historical science. § 19. Much teaching cannot be verified except by indirect methods: for instance, past facts which we know only through single lines of testimony; predic tions which can be verified directly only by the event, because they He beyond our present experience; and revealed mysteries, which are concerned with matters that transcend present human experience. These last may indeed have been verified to their original recipients by supernatural events which accredited the divine source, and therefore the absolute trust worthiness, of authoritative teaching. But these super natural events faU under the head of past facts, no longer verifiable directly, except by dependence upon the concurrent testimony of witnesses, transmitted through various fines of tradition, written or un written. The credibiHty of these witnesses, and of the traditions by which their testimony is transmitted 30 AUTHORITY IN GENERAL to us, has been found, broadly speaking, to be suf ficient, so far as the essential articles of the Chris tian faith are concerned. But direct verification is not available. Indirect verification has for its purpose to afford reasons, based on other experience and knowledge, however gained, for believing that the given authorita tive teaching is not incongruous with our other sure knowledge, but fits in with it in such wise as to justify, or at least permit, our acceptance of it as rationaUy credible. Thus an appeal to experience rationally considered, and to other means of information gen erally, may tend to estabhsh one or more of the follow ing conclusions: {a) that the teaching in question is not in demonstrable conflict with other truth known to us, and therefore may be true; (6) that it is not shown to be incredible by any lines of investigation that are properly relevant to the subject-matter; (c) that the teaching which comes from the same authoritative source is consistent and rationally coherent, so that part answers to part in one organic whole, pointing to the conclusion that, if any part is true, all is true, and that the truth of the teaching in general makes for the truth of its parts; {d) that it can be made to fit reason ably into related domains of knowledge, for example the march of history in its widest aspect; {e) that it actually makes our view of things in general more rational seemingly, and more satisfying to the philosophi cal instinct; (/) that it appears to meet human needs, to solve pressing problems, to make life less of an RELATION OF AUTHORITY TO FACTORS 31 enigma and more worth Hving for, in short to have the worth- value of truth.1 It can be seen that these Hnes of verification derive their value and force from their cumulative effect, and this effect cannot be experienced except by those who submit to the conditions of spiritual knowledge. Only the devout child of God can fully reafize the unique congruity of revealed truth with aU truth whatsoever. And, just as converging lines of circumstantial evi dence may remove aU doubts from an inteUigent juror's mind, so the cumulative results of spiritual experience may put one in a position to say, "I now know for myself, what once I beHeved simply on authority." 2 It remains that, in order to know the mysteries of God, one must first accept them on trust, and must continue to depend upon authority for their positive and formal proof.3 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., pp. 90-91, on what it means to show the reasonableness of revealed truth. 2 It is not inconsistent with our emphasis upon the permissibility and value of verification of divine truth that our Lord pronounced a peculiar blessing upon those that " have not seen, and yet have be lieved." St. John xx. 29. If we have not yet acquired implicit trust in the authorities on which we depend, loyalty to truth demands further inquiry on our part, so far as it is open to us. Then, too, verification has a wider purpose than the cure of doubt. It enriches our understanding of the truths which we have accepted. 8 The attitude of trust is the ultimate basis of all knowledge. Sir William Hamilton says, "The original data of reason do not rest upon reason, but are necessarily accepted by reason on the authority of what is beyond itself. These data are, therefore, in rigid pro priety, beliefs or trusts." What is called experience is the manifesta tion to us of data whose source is external to our reason. CHAPTER II OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS Part I. Objections § i. We have been concerned thus far with the nature of authority, and its forms, grounds, and rela tions to other factors of knowledge. In our expositions some of the reasons have appeared which may be urged for insisting upon the necessity and value of dependence upon authority in acquiring knowledge of divine things. In this chapter we shall endeavour to exhibit the argu ments for authority more directly and systematicaUy. But it will facifitate this part of our task if we first consider the chief objections that have been urged against dependence upon authority. § 2. (a) It is urged by rationaUsts generally that the knowledge which men can gain from experience, with the exercise of natural reason thereon, is sufficient for the guidance of life, and for all human purposes. In particular, it is denied that divine revelation, over and beyond the teaching of nature, is either possible or capable of being authenticated by means that human experience permits us to acknowledge as vaHd or credible. Before answering that part of the objection which is concerned with supernatural revelation, it should 32 OBJECTIONS 33 be noticed that, as has been shown in the previous chapter, the most aggressive rationafist, if he is a scholar in any sense at aU, is compeUed, and betrays no unwiUingness, to depend upon authority in historical and physical sciences.1 He is not so foolish as to begin at the bottom rung of the ladder of knowledge and Hmit himself to what he finds within the minute sphere of his personal experience and reason. If he acts normaUy and rationally, he accepts, provisionally at least, the teaching of those who have mastered the learning of previous ages, and makes authoritative teaching the basis and working hypothesis of his own studies. Unless he did this he could not hope to ad vance beyond the childhood of the race. It is unneces sary to dwell on this. But there is no reason forthcoming to show that a man is more independent of authority in the spiritual realm than in other spheres of knowledge. And it is certain that in every race men are dependent upon tradition for their rehgious conceptions.2 Even those who break away from the faiths of their teachers and forefathers are quite unable to shut out traditional con ceptions altogether. Nor do wise men undertake to do this. They may indeed be led by their own experience and thinking, whether rightly or not, to modify the views which they have imbibed from their teachers; but to begin de novo in the attainment of spiritual knowl edge, and without permitting oneself to be influenced 1 See above, ch. i. §§ 3, 6. 2 See Hardwick, Christ and Other Masters, Pt. II. ch. iii. imit. 34 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS or determined in any respect by the teaching of others, is impossible. If it were possible, the result would be, as we have said above, retrogression to the childhood of the race. To return to the question of supernatural revelation. It is against dependence upon such revelation that the objection we are considering is especially directed. It may be admitted by the objector that a wise student of religious truth will employ the results of previous investigators in the same field, that is, the results of other men's experience and natural reason, as the point of departure for his own studies.1 But this, we are reminded, is merely to take note of fines of experience and reason similar to his own, and which he can verify. Supernatural revelation, it is urged, belongs to a different order of things altogether. The fact of such revelation requires scientific proof, and no such proof is available. Moreover, the propositions which are alleged to be revealed supernaturally are ones that cannot from the nature of the case be verified by any methods known to scientific minds.2 We have given considerations in our previous volume of Introduction, especially in the chapter on the super- 1 Thus even Reville, Liberal Christianity, p. 76, says that Liberal Protestantism "appeals to the past, most assuredly, because it is always wise to take into account the lessons of the past. He would be rash, indeed, who affected to pay no attention to what humanity has thought and experienced before us." 2 Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, ch. vii., considers this difficulty. OBJECTIONS 35 natural, and in those on faith and reason,1 which ought to meet this difficulty. At all events, to discuss it elabo rately here would take us away from our appointed task. The difficulty arises from a deistic and mechani cal view of the universe, and from an inadequate con ception of the divine plan and of human destiny. If the universe were a mechanical order simply, or if what is called natural law summed up the totality of causes and ends that are to be reckoned with, then indeed there would be no place for befief in any other revela tion than that the meaning of which natural science is mastering, and no place for the supernatural. Natural ism shuts out from consideration all that pertains to any order of human Hfe beyond the present, and rests in the mournful belief that this life is all. "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 2 Such a point of view is impossible for a Christian, whose hopes are larger than this Hfe can satisfy, and whose view 1 See chh. ii., iv., v. 2 1 Cor. xv. 32. Cf. verse 19, "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most pitiable." R. V. Also Isa. xxii. 13. Romanes, in his Candid Examination of Theism, written under the assumed name of Physicus, says, p. 114, "when at times I think, as think at times I must, of the appalling, contrast between the hallowed glory of that creed which once was mine, and the lonely mystery of existence as now I find it, — at such times I shall ever feel it impos sible to avoid the sharpest pang of which my nature is susceptible ... I cannot but feel that for me, and for others who think as I do, there is a dreadful truth in those words of Hamilton, — Philoso phy having become a meditation, not merely of death, but of annihi lation, the precept know thyself has become transformed into the terrific oracle to Oedipus — ' Mayest thou ne'er know the truth of what thou art.'" 36 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS of the march of events includes principles of causation, lines of progress, and purposes to be realized, which transcend what can be learned either by unassisted reason or from natural experience, but which deter mine his own possibiHties, aspirations, and duties in a radical manner. Without supernatural revelation he is quite unable to rise to the larger and truer ideal of Hfe, or to make progress towards the destiny appointed for him — his chief end.1 The proofs that ought to be demanded of supernatu ral revelation, from the nature of the case, He outside the sphere of natural science, which is concerned with events of purely natural causation; 2 and the same may be asserted touching the verification of revealed mys teries, as has been shown in the previous chapter.3 In brief, the rationaHstic demand for scientific proof and scientific verification is really unscientific. It expresses a refusal to accept such evidence, and to pursue such methods of verification, as are appropri ate to the subject-matter. The word "scientific" is 1 Underlying the whole scheme of Christianity is the thought that we are made to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever." This is man's chief end, and Christianity affords knowledge, ways, and practices — necessary to be acquired, pursued, and obeyed — which depend for discovery and sanction upon supernatural revelation. The nature of Christian righteousness is determined in its primary and determi native elements by such revelation. 2 That is, using the word "proofs" strictly; Natural science does afford abundant indirect evidence of the insufficiency of natural knowledge to satisfy human aspirations, and the notion that these aspirations are to remain unsatisfied is unphilosophical. 2 See §§i8, 19. OBJECTIONS 37 used in the restricted sense of naturalistic, as if the supernatural were necessarily unscientific.1 § 3. {b)t Another objection is that the human mind is made narrow and superstitious when governed by servile dependence upon authority, and becomes para lyzed. Our reason is given us in order to be exercised, and a strenuous maintenance of the right to acquire truth rationaUy, such as is found among intelHgent men generaUy, is justified by man's deepest instincts. It cannot be overruled without mental disaster; and history shows all along that the peoples who depend most absolutely upon authority are the most backward in inteHectual progress and the most superstitious. We do not deny that servifity of mind is conducive to mental degradation and superstition. And if our dependence upon authority is of a servile nature, the trustworthiness of the authority depended upon will not save us from superstition. Authority has no magical power to enHghten an intelligence that is inert or otherwise incapable of enHghtened progress. But the evil lies in the subjective factor, not in that depend ence upon legitimate authority which we are defending.2 1 The scientific claim of theology — the science of the super natural — is discussed in Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. i. Pt. V. 2 Some orthodox writers certainly do describe the nature and functions of dogmatic authority in mechamcal terms, suggestive of magical efficiency, irrespective of rational and spiritual methods of appropriating truth on the part of believers. But they caricature the true notion of dogmatic authority. It is not true, for instance, that the acceptance of infallible authority involves no private — i.e. fallible — judgment, or that it secures infallible certainty. Human certainty is always such as is possible 38 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS Such dependence is grounded in enhghtened reason, appeals to it, and both widens and adds security to its exercise. No doubt authority may be iUegitimately employed, or may be extended beyond its appointed sphere and purpose. It is the undeniable right and duty of en lightened reason to detect such abuses, and to restrict dependence upon authority to those limits within which such dependence can be justified rationally. If an authority can be seen to be trustworthy, so that its teaching is credible, and we defend no other authority, then our dependence upon it is rational. The reason is afforded larger knowledge, and emancipated rather than enslaved.1 We refer, of course, to reason for a fallible individual understanding. Absolute trustworthiness of an authority is one thing, the degree of subjective certainty which can be gained in relation to its claims and teaching is another. We may not confuse infallible authority with infallible guidance, for the success of guidance depends upon subjective conditions in individual and fallible men. The certainty of faith may be so full as to exclude doubt; but in human beings both certainty and doubt are subjective qualities of fallible understandings. The demand for infallible certainty is both futile and unnecessary. It is enough that God affords derivative teaching authority that may be trusted, and sufficient evidence of its trustworthiness to per suade the spiritually teachable to take advantage of it rationally and spiritually. 1 As Maccoll shows, On the Creed, pp. 1-6, a. creed serves as a fence to ward off encroachments upon the faith; but, "Freedom of thought does not mean an unlimited right to accept any conclusion; it means liberty to work out the right conclusion." The opposite of freedom of thought is deadening constraint, not mental certainty as to truth. Jeremy Taylor says, Liberty of Prophesying, § 10, "The difference is not between reason and authority, but between OBJECTIONS 39 that is not paralyzed by other causes, but is both ready and capable. No system of education can succeed with the unready and incapable. As we have said before, in no other sphere of knowledge except the spiritual do men consider the acquisition of new knowl edge to be prejudicial to freedom of thought. It is not scientific, then, to object to authority on the a priori ground that dependence upon it enslaves the mind. The only objection that is really open to serious dis cussion is a posteriori, the claim that a particular author ity is not trustworthy. We are as opposed as anybody to dependence upon an authority that cannot rationaUy be regarded as trustworthy. No doubt docile children depend upon the authority of their elders before they are capable of understanding why. But it remains that what they do instinctively, as it were, is approved by thoughtful people because sound reason is found to justify their practice, which is not servile but the neces sary condition of successful education. The attitude towards authority which we defend is not one of blindly befieving what we are ordered to believe, but of making intelligent use of the most trustworthy means available for extending the range of our knowledge. 9 § 4. (c) A third objection, somewhat akin to the last, concerns the effect of authoritative teaching upon this reason and that, which is greater." If authority is seen to teach the truth needed, it is greater reason. Moberly shows, in Lux Mundi, pp. 260-261, that Christian dogmatism is really an emphasis on truth; and, pp. 210-220, that truth is not an enemy to intellect ual freedom. St. John viii. 32. Cf. above, p. 15; and Hooker, Eccles. Polity, II. vii. 6 init; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 13-17. 40 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS immature minds. It is said that such teaching imparts a bias and prejudice which nullifies, or at least Hmits, the openness of mind that should characterize genuine truth-seeking; and it is urged that the importance of freedom from bias is proportionate to the importance of the subject-matter of one's studies. This objection concerns primarily the dogmatic and catechetical teaching of the young, although it is appHcable to the teaching of the ignorant generaUy.1 Those who urge this objection start with an unscien tific assumption — that in order to approach rational investigation with an open mind, one must be free from all presuppositions, and must possess a mind that is, in relation to the particular subject-matter, a tabula rasa. But in fact no one can thus approach any important or large subject of investigation. All truth is inter- related, and all men of intelligence find themselves possessed of ideas, otherwise derived, that are related to each new subject of study, and which constitute inevitable pre suppositions in such study. A mental tabula rasa does not exist,2 certainly not when the mind is sufficiently mature to engage in scientific investigation. It is, therefore, not a scientific requirement that a student should be free from presuppositions. To say so is to 1 Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 7-10, exhibits the danger to immature minds of leaving religious truths open. 2 The theory of an initial mental tabula rasa originated with the Stoics. Locke described the mind as a piece of white paper. Essay upon Human Understanding, Bk. II. ch. i. § 2. Leibnitz criticised him, and in doing so coined and gave currency to the phrase tabula rasa. Baldwin, Die. of Philos., s. v. "Tabula Rasa." OBJECTIONS 41 maintain that he should be uninteUigent. Openness of mind is indeed necessary for successful investigation in any department of knowledge; but this does not mean an avoidance of presuppositions, but subjective reaUza- tion of their nature, readiness to allow duly for them, and willingness, if later knowledge demands this, to modify or even to abandon them. What sort of student would he be who refused to accept the teaching of elementary text-books in the physical sciences for fear that his mind would be hampered in more advanced and personal laboratory work ? x It is, of course, essential that one's presuppositions should be as sound as possible.2 To begin from a right point of view in personal investigation is obvi ously very desirable, and may determine radicaUy one's success as a scientist.3 But this means that his early teaching should be as true and reasonable as practi cable. It does not mean that he should be left to form his first notions without superior guidance. The self- 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vi. Pt. II., pp. 151-159. 2 Children do not wait in this matter, but begin forming presup positions at once. It depends, therefore, on their earliest training whether these will be correct or not. This is as true in religion as, to give an important parallel, in morals. 8 The aim which justifies a scientist in adopting as a working hypothesis what is as yet not fully established, is to secure a point of view which seems likely to give greater value to his subsequent inves tigation. Catholic dogma, imparted to young minds, performs the duty of a working hypothesis; and the fact that such dogma will hold its own to the end is not a proof of its warping effect upon the mind, but of its ability, because true, to stand the tests which subsequent experience makes available. 42 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS educated man is rarely able to attain to the higher ranks of scholarship. Sound premises and sofid founda tions, such as require competent instruction for their successful mastery, are clearly essential; and their neces sity is pecuHarly great in spiritual matters, wherein our highest and eternal welfare is involved. The sum of the matter is that the immature ought to receive the most trustworthy instruction in divine truth that can be had ; and the more precise this teach ing is, provided it be true, the better wiU their minds be equipped for the more mature and personal considera tion of spiritual reafities. To say otherwise is to aban don in religion the principles of common sense that govern intelligent education in other spheres of knowl edge.1 The fact is that those who raise the objection we are considering are really governed by the presupposition that no assured knowledge of divine things exists which can be imparted to immature minds without the neces sity of its subsequent correction, if the pupil becomes a competent student. We have discussed this difficulty very fully in our volume on Introduction? § 5. {d) The late Dr. Martineau says, "If to rest on authority is to mean an acceptance of what, as 1 It may be objected that the dogmatic language which children are made to memorize conveys no meaning to them. That is not quite true. Children do discern a superficial meaning, if reasonably intelligent, and that meaning grows upon them with their mental growth. Thus the phrases which are learned when the memory is peculiarly tenacious become permanent premises of thought, and are never outgrown. Cf. Ephes. vi. 4. 2 See ch. i. § 25 and ch. v. OBJECTIONS 43 foreign to my faculty,1 1 cannot know, in mere reliance on the testimony of one who can and does, I certainly find no such basis for rehgion; inasmuch as second hand befief, assented to at the dictation of an initiated expert,2 without personal response of thought and reverence in myself, has no more tincture of refigion in it than any other lesson learned by rote.3 The mere resort to testimony for information beyond our province does not fiU the meaning of 'authority'; which we never acknowledge tiU that which speaks to us from another and higher strikes home and wakes the echoes in our selves, and is thereby instantly transferred from external attestation to self-evidence.4 And this response it is 1 Revealed truths are not foreign to our faculties. If they were they could not be revealed to us. But they transcend merely natural experience, require the aid of grace for their assimilation, and have to be made known supernaturally and transmitted to subsequent generations by authoritative means. 2 Invidious terminology. "Second-hand belief" refers really to the common-sense habit of trusting those who have more direct means of information than we possess. "Dictation" suggests an arbitrariness that does not inhere necessarily in correct teaching. And "an initiated expert" is more descriptive of a natural scientist than of a messenger from God. It is not what has been discovered by experts, but what has been received from God, that is submitted to our assent by ecclesiastical and biblical authority. 3 Certainly to learn divine truth merely "by rote" "has no tincture of religion in it." There must be "personal response of thought and reverence." This is merely to acknowledge that authoritative teaching is not the only factor in a truly religious guidance. Authority is not rightly discredited because found to be unable to take the place of other factors equally vital. * Authority, if valid at all, is valid irrespectively of and prior to our acknowledgment of it. And our acknowledgment does not " transfer" 44 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS which makes the moral intuitions, started by outward appeals, reflected back by inward veneration, more than egoistic phenomena and, turning them into cor respondency between the universal and the individual mind, invests them with true 'authority.' We trust in them, not with any rationafist arrogance because they are our own, but precisely because they are not our own, with awe and inspiration. The conscious ness of authority is doubtless human; but conditional on the source being Divine." J Behind all this is an emphatic repudiation of miracu lous revelations, and of the mechanical kind of infalH- bifity which he supposes to be claimed for the Church and Scripture by his opponents. The only authority in religion that he acknowledges is immediately divine, making itself felt exclusively in the human conscience. it from "external attestation to self-evidence." The mysteries of divine revelation are not self-evident on this side the grave. But if they became so, this would be only on the condition that external authority had presented them to our minds for consideration. In any case, external authority is not changed into something else by our recognition of the truth of its teaching, nor is its claim and value nullified thereby. 1 Seat of Authority, pp. vi, vii. Reville raises a similar objection, that when we accept authority we do so on grounds of reason, so that it is the adhesion of our mind that gives authority its weight. Liberal Christianity, pp. 175, 176. He confuses the rational process of dis covering the validity of authority's claim with the making of authority. It is because authority is valid prior to our reasoning that it is dis covered to be credible by reason; and it is this prior validity that reason discovers, thus establishing the rationality of our dependence upon authority. Martineau's objection is considered by Stanton, Authority, pp. 29-33- OBJECTIONS 45 It there commands us to seek the better and shun the worse. What is better or worse is discerned progres sively, he urges, under the same sure guidance, as the data of social experience enlarge.1 Dr. Martineau was prejudiced against external or objective authority partly at least because he consid ered it only in mechanical caricature, and as some thing which must displace reason and enslave the wiU. This appears clearly in his chapters on the cathofic and protestant conceptions of authority — cathoHc meaning with him papal.2 In criticising ex ternal authority he appears to assume that its objec tive vaHdity depends upon the subjective assimilation of its teaching. Thus revelation is made to mean in effect subjective intuition, often occasioned and caused, no doubt, by the external presentation of data, but having no vaHdity as revelation except in the intuitive perceptions of the mind. Religious truth is regarded as self-evidencing. We are reminded of Coleridge's view of biblical inspiration, that the Bible is inspired in so far as it finds and inspires the reader.3 The notion of objec tive authority is reaUy nullified. The answer lies in a clearer distinction between the function of authority and that of the reason and conscience. Authority presents truth to the mind, and does so none the less 1 Seat of Authority, Bk. I. ch. ii. 2 Seat of Authority, Bk. II. 3 "In short, whatever finds me, bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit." Letters on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, I. v. 46 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS reaUy whether it is rightly understood or not. The objective factor, in short, is a real one, and neces sary for the proposition of what is not otherwise brought to the attention of the reason or otherwise attested. The subjective factor is also real, and it is the function of the reason to consider the credibility of authority, to verify what is taught in manners suit able to the subject-matter, and to assimilate and apply it. Neither the external proposition of truth nor the subjective consideration of it is sufficient alone for spiritual knowledge, but each is nevertheless necessary.1 It is not the normal method of God to teach men immediately from within, but rather in a manner agreeing with the constitution of human nature and with the ordinary methods of human knowledge. We learn by the exercise of subjective faculties; but the truths which we learn come to us objectively, either in the form of the data of experience or in that of the testimony of others.2 It is not otherwise with spiritual knowledge. The human spirit neither receives nor communicates thought, nor even thinks, independently of external signs or operations extra neous to the mind itself.3 The gifts of the Holy Spirit enlighten the mind indeed, but in this sense, that they clarify it and enable it to interpret and as- 1 All this has been shown in our discussion of the relations between authority and reason, in the previous chapter, §§ 10-15. 2 Strong, Authority, pp. 25, 26. 3 Thought is conditioned by movements of the grey matter of the brain, and only strict materialists confuse the two. OBJECTIONS 47 simulate in its own manner what is otherwise proposed to it.1 § 6. (e) Another objection is based on a disparage ment of reUgious doctrine. We hear it urged that rehgion is not a matter of abstract knowledge at all, but of subjective and personal drawing to God and to righteousness. The purpose of God in educating the race is not to impart exact information touching mys terious subjects; but to manifest Himself to us, and to assinulate our characters to His own by our personal acquaintance and contact with Himself. There is, therefore, no place in true rehgion for an authoritative promulgation of information concerning matters that He outside the appointed Unfits of human experience and reason.2 The mistake here lies in a false conception of the purport of authoritative doctrine. It is indeed the supreme end of reUgion that we should know God and 1 See above, pp. 24, 25. 2 Thus Martineau is ready to acknowledge the a priori possibility of our receiving information about invisible things through others. He does not deny the validity of "authority for intellectual assent to what I learn from persons better informed." He contends, how ever, that "it has no tincture of religion in it." Seat of Authority, p. x. Reville, in Liberal Christianity, pp. 64 et seq., takes a some what similar line. Schleiermacher took a sentimental view of religion, as consisting of a feeling of dependence upon some higher Power. Liddon exposes the inadequacy of such a view in the admirable opening lecture of his Some Elements of Religion. In his Divinity of our Lord, pp. 3-5, he points out, in relation to Schleiermacher, the impossibility of the feeling of dependence gaining secure support without a definition of its Object, i.e. without dogma. 48 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS His Son Jesus Christ.1 But there is a divine plan to which we have to conform in the attainment of this end, as well as ways to be pursued, and facts and conditions to be reckoned with. Christian doctrines contain the elements of knowledge which enable us to do aU this, so as to pursue our chief end intelligently and securely. They are no mere formula, imposed only for our probation, but truths by which to five, the lack of which would not only leave us groping, but would de prive us of the enthusiasm that men feel when they understand whither they are going and walk in Ught.2 § 7. (/) StiU another objection is based on the faUi- biHty of authoritative teaching, and its liability to err. To err is human, and we are often quite unable to dis tinguish between correct and erroneous authoritative teaching. This is borne out by all experience, for the history of human progress in knowledge is to a con siderable extent the history of modifications and aban donments of previous teaching. Moreover, if such be the case with the knowledge of nature, which lies open to common observation, it is still more likely that teaching concerning the profound mysteries of the spiritual world will be found to be defective and often whoUy at fault.3 1 "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." St. John xvii. 3. 2 1 St. John i. 5-7. Cf. St. John xii. 35, 36; Ephes. v. 8. 8 Martineau, Seat of Authority, pp. 132-152, portrays at length the variations of opinion within the Church, failing, of course, to dis tinguish the vagaries of individuals and parties from the dogmatic teaching of the Church. As to the question of errors in the Scrip tures, see below, ch. vii. §§ 5-7. OBJECTIONS 49 The objection proves too much; for, if it is valid in any sphere, it militates against all educational authority whatsoever. Men of common sense do not reject the reasonableness of dependence upon parental and aca demic teaching, or the necessity of such teaching for the intellectual advance of the young, because it is confessedly fallible. We all are children in regard to the deep things of God; so that, if we are to advance in spiritual knowledge at all, we need competent teach ing. By competent teaching is meant teaching that is grounded in knowledge which our own experience has not given us, even though it retains the note of falli bility that attaches to human teaching generally. In short, the necessity of dependence upon authority is not grounded in the infallibility of authority, but in social relations, in the Hmitations of individual experience, and in the relatively superior knowledge and teaching capacity of those upon whose authority we depend. Moreover, authoritative teaching suffices for practical purposes, and meets a real need, even though it falls short of infallibility.1 § 8. But we have not yet faced the real difficulty, which is caused by the claim of absolute finality for the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Holy Scrip ture touching doctrines and practices alleged to be necessary for salvation. Such a claim is based neces- 1 William Law, in Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor, I, shows that the reality of ecclesiastical authority does not depend upon its absoluteness. Cf. Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 109-116, who writes, however, as rejecting the Church's claim to infallibility in toto. Cf. also Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 6, 7. 5 SO OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS sarily, as catholic writers readily acknowledge, upon the assumption that the Cathofic Church and the Scrip tures are in some sense infallible. Thus the individual mind, it is alleged, is placed at the mercy of authority and is robbed of an inahenable right to modify or reject its teaching, when widening experience and more mature reflection demand the one or the other. The reason is thus stultified. Perhaps no difficulty connected with the subject of authority is more keenly felt than this. But it arises partly from disbelief in the supernatural, which we cannot discuss at this point; 1 and partly from miscon ception as to the nature and practical consequences for human reason of ecclesiastical and biblical infalH- bility, a subject which can be considered more intelh- gently later on.2 It is enough for the present to point out that, if ecclesiastical and biblical authority are really infallible, it is a blunder to speak of reason being at their mercy or stultified. Infallibility means absolute trustworthiness in teaching truth; and no sensible per son supposes that reason is suppressed or stultified by being afforded knowledge that is absolutely correct. Reason that resents trustworthy information is cer tainly not sound reason, or entitled to be reckoned with by sincere truth-seekers.3 The issue then is one 1 See Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. ii. 2 See especially ch. iii. Pt. III. on ecclesiastical infallibility; but also ch. vii. §§5, 6, on certain aspects of biblical infallibility. 3 "For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." 2 Cor. xiii. 8. Without doubting the entire sincerity of many who allege their concern for sound reason as the ground of their repudia- ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 51 of evidence. Can the Church, for example, make good her claim to exercise final and infalhble authority within the sphere of revealed and saving doctrine ? In the proper place, we shall give reasons for beUeving that she can. II. Arguments for Authority § 9. We are now in a position to sum up briefly the positive arguments which justify our contention that dependence upon authority, especiaUy upon ecclesias tical and bibhcal authority, in the sphere of revealed truth, is reasonable, practicaUy helpful, and necessary. (a) Our first argument is that dependence upon authority is in fact universal and inevitable in every department of knowledge and Hfe.1 It is impossible for any one to escape being influenced in judgment concerning truth and practical principles by the exist ing state of knowledge of others, and by the judgments of those whose experience and wisdom appear to be larger in any particulars, or riper, than his own. Chil dren instinctively accept many ideas and principles from their elders, even when most desirous to assert their mental independence; and they do this to a far tion of infallibility, we cannot but suspect that the cause of the dif ficulty is at times intellectual pride. It is hard for an unspiritual soul to acknowledge its insufficiency in spiritual matters, and the necessity that it should occupy the position of a disciple to the end. That the reason which exhibits itself in authoritative teaching is larger and truer than one's own reason cannot be realized except by the spiritual and humble-minded, for spiritual things are spiritually discerned. 1 Cf. ch. i. §§ 3, 4i above. 52 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS greater extent than they reafize at the time. Current notions, largely traditional, determine men's presup positions, in spite of themselves, in every line of thought and study. These presuppositions may be modified or abandoned as the result of personal investigation and reflection, but their inevitableness at the outset is notorious. Likewise in science. If one desires to master a science, he seeks first of all to ascertain what his predecessors have discovered, as registered in text books. One who wishes to become an astronomer, but refuses to accept, provisionally at least, the generally accepted laws of motion of the heavenly bodies, is foredoomed to be defeated in his purpose.1 The same inevitableness attends the attainment of religious knowledge. One may indeed defer by mis take to incompetent guidance. But even the most radical believer in liberalism takes his presupposi tions to a considerable extent from others — perhaps from liberal writers — and is wont to fortify his posi tion by appealing to the concurrence of others, whose competency he admires.2 The biblical critic is no exception. He defers to "results" because of the scholarly competence of those who are supposed to 1 Hooker treats our dependence upon the authority of others in divine things as analogous to the practice of scientists in their sphere. Eccles. Polity, II. vii. 4. Cf. Darwell Stone, The Christian Church, p. 2. Balfour, Foundations of Belief, pp. 203-208, shows the practical impossibility of avoiding dependence upon authority. Cf. pp. 221-227. 2 "Even the ardent advocate of 'free thought' will crowd his margins and appendixes with 'authorities.'" McLaren, Catholic Dogma, p. 22. ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 53 have established them; and his own work consists partly in verifying what he has accepted from others. He also calls on others, confessedly unequal to expert investigation, to be governed by the latest scholar ship; which means by the authority of others. So it is that the humble Christian believer, who recognizes that he must be guided by authority in matters beyond his personal experience, simply imitates in the spiritual sphere the inevitable conduct of all men in every sphere. If this is irrational, then all men are irrational. § 10. (6) That dependence upon authority is rational appears in the undeniable fact that without such de pendence no one can advance in knowledge a step beyond what Hes within his own untutored experi ence.1 We say "untutored," for to be tutored and trained means to be helped by authority, and thus to acquire such prefiminary knowledge and guidance as is necessary to proceed intelhgently in one's own observa tion and thinking. What progress could an infant make who grew up in isolation and learned nothing from others? He would inevitably become a savage or an absurd eccentric. To take one obvious illustration, what sort of his tory would be available if authority were rejected? It is to an important extent his recognition that knowl edge of the past depends upon acceptance of what seems to be the most trustworthy testimony of others that is available, which accounts for the Christian's 1 Cf. ch. i. § 12, above. 54 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS beUef in the primary verities of Christian doctrine. His belief in revelation is grounded in his acceptance of certain facts of history, and his acceptance of these facts is due to a method of procedure in such matters which all men observe in their study of the past. The only way by which his position can be overthrown is by showing the untrustworthiness of the authorities upon which he depends. The demand that he should not depend upon authority means that he should abandon in religion the principles of common sense that are observed in other spheres of knowledge. § ii. (c) A third argument for dependence upon authority is the value for general progress of the knowledge which is gained by dependence upon it. Such value is conditioned, of course, by the compe tency and trustworthiness of the authority depended upon. Thus the dependence of superstitious pagan races upon the authority of their priests and sages is shorn of much of its value by the incompetency and untrustworthiness of their teachers. This merely shows that authority should be tested. The fact is that, speaking generally, authority grows more competent with the general progress of knowledge,1 and this pro gress depends upon the acceptance by each generation 1 Because authoritative teaching registers the knowledge pre viously attained, which grows more secure age by age. The fact that catholic doctrine registers what has been revealed once for all modi fies this in the sphere of dogma; but even ecclesiastical dogma repre sents the attainment of a more articulate consciousness of what has been revealed, and the Church's experience is continually deepening the grounds of assurance that revealed truth is rational. ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 55 of the knowledge transmitted by those who have assim ilated what has been learned in preceding generations. It is to be emphasized, then, that human progress is made possible only by each generation beginning at the level of knowledge gained by its predecessors, and this involves dependence upon authority. If each generation began over again, progress beyond what one generation could learn would be hopelessly impos sible.1 This consideration apphes to every sphere of progress. One fact wiU iUustrate our contention. The invention of printing is generaUy considered to have been one of the most important factors in modern progress. Such an opinion rests obviously on a general recognition that a wide diffusion of knowledge by competent writers, that is, by authorities, makes for human progress. Another cause of modern progress is the enlargement of spheres of action in which inteUigent co-operation is possible. But co-operation is necessarily based upon an acceptance of common principles and common points of view. And the prevalence of common prin ciples is due to the acceptance by men in general of what is thought to be the most competent guidance and the best systems of education. This means, of course, general dependence upon the authority of men of learning, who are what they are by reason of their own acceptance of the results attained by the wise men who have preceded them. The acceptance of authority in rehgion affords the 1 Cf. ch. i. § 12, above. 56 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS same advantages. There is such a thing as progress in rehgious intelHgence, and it depends upon conditions analogous to those of other spheres of progress. Israel advanced in rehgious conceptions and ideals through readiness to imbibe as well as to advance beyond what previous generations had learned. The Catholic Church advanced in its assimilation of spiritual things by accepting a faith once for all delivered, which has furnished fruitful premises of thought to her theologians ever since. Why is twentieth-century theology richer, and why is modern Christianity so progressive in its efforts to apply Christian principles to current prob lems? Whatever else may have contributed to such progress, a vital factor has been the Church's posses sion of revealed truths, and a heritage of many cen turies of reflection thereon by the wisest men of each age.1 It is the acceptance of this heritage, even by those who repudiate some of its contents, that makes modern triumphs in sacred learning a possibiHty. § 12. {d) FinaUy, there is the effect on individuals of being guided by authoritative teaching; They are thus brought into line with the general progress of mankind, and are made sharers in all the bene fits of civilization. The pure individuahst is always handicapped in Hfe. FaiUng to conform to the ways of his age he becomes stranded on the shores of Hfe. He is caUed eccentric; and this means that 'he seeks to build on the petty foundations of his isolated ex perience, and lags behind. 1 Cf. ch. ix. §§ i, 5, below. ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 57 So it is in spiritual things. The pure individuaHst attains only to a stunted growth. His mind becomes warped, one-sided, and narrow. How different it is when he is wilUng to be taught the deep things of God ! He thus receives truths which are no mere puzzles, but truths by which to live, secrets of salvation, lights on the road of eternal Hfe, principles of entire perfec tion in righteousness, beginnings of an inteUigent mas tery of the future.1 Then too, certain valuable elements of character are fostered by the habit of dependence upon competent authority. DociUty is a virtue and, when intelligently cultivated, brings forth the fruits of a humility and inteUectual modesty which are consistent with, and round out, aU that is valuable in self-rehance. To conclude, to reject the principle of dependence upon competent authority is to repudiate the inevitable, to bar the way to progress, to deprive oneself of count less advantages in Hfe, and to sink into eccentricity and uninteUigence. And to reject this principle in the sphere of rehgion is to assume that rehgion is irrational, so that we need not be governed in its sphere by the principles of common sense which are acknowledged to be vital elsewhere. § 13. #We saw in the previous chapter that reason has two general functions in relation to authoritative 1 It should be noted that the same principle holds good with national Churches. Just to the extent that the Anglican Churches refuse to defer to the larger mind of the Catholic Church in general they become provincial and insular, and their theological atmosphere becomes narrow and one-sided. 58 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS teaching: (a) of investigating and testing the trust worthiness of the authority which gives it; (6) of assimi lating, relating, verifying and applying practically what is taught by authority. The latter function has been sufficiently considered for our purpose; but it remains to summarize briefly and comment upon the tests which reason will properly apply to authority in order to verify its claims. 0 (a) The first and most obvious test is that of suf ficient and superior information within the sphere of teaching involved. This requires not only that the authority in question must have had adequate means and opportunities of acquiring the knowledge claimed by it, but also that it must have been capable of acquir ing that knowledge correctly. We believe that ecclesiastical authority stands such a test, because of adequate instruction by supernatural revelation, and by reason of illumination by the Holy Spirit. Similarly we are rationally persuaded that the Sacred Scriptures embody correctly, and in manifold ways and degrees, the contents of the revelation given to the Church. If this revelation came truly from God,1 and if the Church was guided by the Spirit in appropriating it,2 and the sacred writers were divinely inspired in embodying it,3 ecclesiastical and biblical 1 We have discussed supernatural revelation in Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. ii. Pt. II. Proofs of the genuineness of Christian revela tion belong to apologetics. 2 The subject of the guidance of the Spirit afforded to the Church is treated of in ch. iii. § 8, below 3 On the inspiration of the Holy Scripture see ch. vi. Pt. I, below. ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 59 authority can stand the test of superiority in knowl edge.1 (6) The second test is that of honesty and sincere purpose of teaching the truth in its purity and integrity. This is indispensable. Happily the integrity of the original prophetic and apostolic witnesses is beyond suspicion.2 And the anxiety of the Church to guard her deposit of truth by meeting its perversions with precise dogmatic definitions, and by the discipline of heretics, has been so emphatic that her very faithful ness has been the basis of frequent complaint that she 1 That is, within the appointed sphere of revealed and saving truth and principles. We do not depend upon these authorities to solve extraneous problems. It should be noted that the Church's life spans the interval of time between the publication of the Gospel and the present age. She is in the fullest sense a contemporary and direct witness of the Gospel facts. And these facts moulded her organization and chief institu tions in such wise as to make her a permanent, significant, and easily interpreted concrete memorial, as well as an ever living witness, of the experiences and revelations with which her life began. 2 We are here speaking on purely human grounds, although we do not forget the evidence that these witnesses were assisted and guided by the Holy Spirit. The sobriety, competency, and sincerity of the first preachers of the Gospel has been vindicated thousands of times, and has withstood successfully every critical assault of modern times. Cf. Fisher's Grounds of Belief, ch. xii. Practically every manual of apologetics treats of the subject. It is to be re membered that the fact of the resurrection is attested with peculiar force, amid all variations of detail, and this fact gives credibility to the whole Gospel narrative and to our Lord's claim and teaching. See Sparrow-Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, ch. i-vii; V. Rose, Studies on the Gospels, ch. viii.; and Day, The Evidence for the Resurrection, for treatments of the essential harmony of the wit nesses to the resurrection. 6b OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS values orthodoxy more than charity — as if charity could flourish apart from truth.1 (c) A third test concerns capacity to teach correctly. Knowledge does not necessarily involve such capacity, for what is known needs translation into terms which can be understood under changed conditions of thought and speech. Authority is not discredited, however, when those who would test its capacity neglect to fulfil the peculiar conditions that are indispensable in the particular subject-matter. A wilful schoolboy is not a competent judge of the competency of his teachers, nor is one who lacks spiritual docility capable of testing rightly the competency of spiritual authority. We are not concerned, therefore, to prove the capacity of the Church and Scripture to impart spiritual knowl edge to unspiritual and unteachable minds. Our con tention, made good we beheve by this treatise at large, is that, in spite of the occasional prevalence of heresy, in spite of schism and the confusion that sectarianism engenders, the Catholic Church has succeeded in teach ing her faithful children the substantial contents of what was given her to teach in primitive days.2 1 The wrangling which attended the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils owed its intensity largely to the seriousness with which any alteration of the original deposit was regarded by those who suc ceeded in framing their decisions. 2 Sectarianism engenders confusion, among other reasons, because it separates the two authorities of Church and Scripture from each other, and in interpreting Scripture substitutes private judgment for the Church's faith. Thus the "obedience of faith" is violated. It should be added that the ability of the Church to teach may not be impugned, as long as those who submit to her ways are in fact ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORITY 6l {d) Another test has reference to the sphere within which an authority claims to 'be competent. A chemi cal expert is deferred to in chemical matters, but not necessarily in other concerns. The sphere within which ecclesiastical and biblical authority is claimed is spiritual; and, if an ecclesiastical utterance, or scriptural passage, contains or imphes teaching in other matters, we do not attribute the same authority to such teaching that we do to spiritual teachings from the same source. We are convinced that, within their appointed sphere, the authority of the Church and of Scripture, reasonably taken, has never been success- fuUy impugned.1 (c) FinaUy, authoritative teaching must not be demonstrably irrational, that is, impossible to bring into inteUigible and credible relation to other truth, if it is to be accepted by inteUigent men. Ecclesiastical and bibUcal authority can stand this test. And every led into saving truth in proportion to individual capacities, merely because her methods of teaching do not conform to mechanical and a priori ideas of what they ought to be. And it should not be for gotten that the leading contents of the Church's teaching are defined in the catholic creeds, which have always been intelligible to those who seek to accept the permanent mind of the Church. 1 We shall treat of the limitations of ecclesiastical infallibility in ch. iii. § n; and of the alleged errors in Scripture incidentally in ch. vi, and more directly in ch. vii. §§ 5, 6. The distinction between ecumenical doctrine and the positions of theologians and ecclesiastics is important in this connection. Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, and White's Warfare of Science with Theology, may well be consulted — not without caution, however. Fisher's Grounds of Belief, note 22, pp. 43S~447, is suggestive and helpful. 62 OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS Une of Christian apologetic, by which the internal coherence and reasonableness of catholic doctrine is exhibited, its freedom from conflict with other knowl edge, and its practical value to humanity, constitutes evidence of our contention.1 1 Cf. ch. i. §§ 14, 15, above. Goodwin's Foundations of the Creed, and Maccoll On the Creed, are largely devoted to showing the reasonableness of the Church's ecumenical doctrines. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 360-363, shows that the doctrines of Chris tianity, because they claim absolute allegiance of a kind that involves heavy responsibilities, have to undergo very rude and hostile testing through the ages, a testing that purges out accretions and causes that only to survive which is true and rational. CHAPTER III ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY I. Doctrinal Authority in General § i. It has been shown in the preceding chapters that dependence upon teaching authority is both practi- caUy inevitable and rationally justifiable; and that this holds good in spiritual things. It has also been indi cated that the claims which ecclesiastical and biblical authority make — of supernatural sanctions, and of finaHty in doctrine 1 — do not alter the reasonableness of our dependence upon such authority, if these claims can be made good. • Broadly speaking, authority in the sphere of divine truth is divided into divine and human.2 Perhaps, in view of the fact that the ultimate source and sanction 1 "Finality" in this connection means simply that the teaching of the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture is in fact permanently true and valid, so that no increase of knowledge can warrant its rejection or reduce its value for the guidance of life. 2 See Pearson, Creed, pp. 6-7, 11-19. Flint, Agnosticism, pp. 542-551, exhibits the protestant view. He distinguishes (a) personal and human authority, which seeks to make itself unnecessary; (b) ecclesiastical, which is not ultimate; (c) biblical, which must deter mine all controversy. Catholic and protestant alike accept the supreme authority of Christ, and rest all derivative authority in its trustworthiness in exhibiting His teaching. See W. M. M'Pheeters in Hastings' Die. of Christ, s.v. "Authority in Religion." 63 64 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY of aU authority is divine, these two may be more con veniently described as intrinsic and derivative. In trinsic authority, or divine authority in its immediate and direct exercise, is of course absolute and infalhble. Reason cannot consistently contend against teaching that is recognized to come directly from God, or that is seen to be a true reproduction of such teaching. The very vaHdity of reason itself is grounded in the infallibiHty of the divine mind, for reason has no other source than that mind. It is the finiteness of our participation in divine reason that makes us liable to err; and this limitation forbids our depend ence upon our own reason in opposition to the perfect mind of God. Human reason should always be conformed to the mind of God, so far as divine revelation exhibits that mind to us.1 History shows that divine authority has not been made available directly and immediately to men in general, or to any except certain prophets and those who beheld and listened to the Word-Incarnate during His earthly ministry. Other men are dependent upon derivative authority for knowledge of supernatural revelation.2 1 Cf. pp. 8, io, above. 2 Roman Catholic writers acknowledge that private revelations are on a lower level than those recorded in Scripture. Leo IX forbade their publication unless approved of by the Papal See. Moreover, papal approval is only concerned with their not being contrary to the faith. They may not be appealed to in order to settle controversies of faith. St. Augustine, De Catech. Rud., ch. 6, will not concede to them the authority which he yields to biblical revelations. Cf. Card. Veron, Regula Fidei, cap. i. § 3; Salmon, Infallibility, Lee. XIII. DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL 65 § 2. 'The primary forms of such derivative authority are the ecclesiastical and biblical. These are divinely guaranteed, and are therefore infallible within their appointed range, and supremely determinative for Christian behevers. One of the chief reasons for which the Church was established and organized by our Lord was that she might receive and transmit to all subsequent genera tions the contents of His teaching, as set forth by Hi!~ own word of mouth, as embodied in His self-manifesta tion, and as made clear to the Church's understanding by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.1 1 The command to teach which was given by our Lord to the Church was coupled with promises which show its permanency. St. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. Cf. St. Matt. xxiv. 14. What was to be taught and contended for is described elsewhere as "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." St. Jude 3. The following are some of the more important texts bearing either directly or indirectly on the grounds, nature, and limits of the teach ing authority of the Church and her ministers: St. Matt. xvi. 16-18; xviii. 17; St. Mark xvi. 15; St. Luke x. 16; St. John xiv. 16, 17, 26; xvi. 13-15; xx. 21; Acts i. *, 3; ii. 1-4, 14-36; vi. 2; xv. 28; xvi. 4; xx. 28; Rom. xii. 4-8; 1 Cor. iv. 1-2; xi, 23; xii. 28, 29; xv. 1-3; xvi. 16; 2 Cor. ii. 9-10; iv. 1-3; x. 8; Gal. i. ±, 8-12; ii. 6-11; Ephes. i. 22-23; "i- 2-11; iv. 11-16; Col. iii. 16; 1 Thess. v. 11, 12, 20, 21; 1 Tim. i. 1, 3, 4; iii. 15; vi. 3-5; vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 13, 14; ii. 2; iv. 2; Tit. i. 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 13; ii. 15; iii. 10, 11; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 St. Pet. v. 1-3; 2 St. Pet. iii. 2; 2 St. John 10; St. Jude 3. On the whole subject of ecclesiastical authority see Palmer, Of the Church, Pt. III. ch. iii. v; Pt. IV; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, ch. xiii; Stanton, Place of Authority, ch. iv; Strong, Authority in the Church; Garbett, Dogmatic Faith; Church Historical Society Lectures, 2d Series; Pusey, The Rule of Faith; Field, Of the Church, esp. Bk. IV.; Laud, Conference with Fisher; E. T. Green, The Church and the Sacraments, ch. xiv.; McLaren, Catholic Dogma; Moehler, 6 66 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY The Sacred Scriptures, on the other hand, have been constituted as a divinely inspired library, provided for the edification of those who are taught by the Church. They were not the original source of divine truth to the Church, nor does the purpose of their inspiration displace the Church's teaching function. They imply that ecclesiastical teaching has been given to those for whom they are written, and that such teaching is Spirit-guided and true.1 The purpose of Scriptural inspiration is to afford teaching which will make men "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ," 2 that is, in the faith which the Church is divinely guided to teach and Symbolism, Pt. I. ch. v.; Newman, Lees, on the Prophetical Office of the Church; Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority (partly pro- Roman). Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. I. pp. 9-121, although Roman, gives a useful patristic catena. Cf. Cary, Testimonies to the Doc. of the Ch. of Eng., in Art. xx; and Thorndike, Prins. of Christian Truth, I. xxviii. 16-26. An Anglican catena may be found in Tracts for the Times, lxxviii. The inability of protestant writers to under stand the Church's claim is exhibited in Fairbairn's Catholicism Roman and Anglican; and the catholic position is more or less con fused with the Roman position in Martineau's Place of Authority, and Salmon's Infallibility of the Church. 1 The early disciples did not go to the Scriptures to discover Christian doctrines, but "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts xvii. 11. Our Lord's commission was not to teach what was discovered in Scripture, but "whatsoever I have commanded you." St. Matt, xxviii. 2 . Believers are exhorted to follow the faith of "them that have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God." Heb. xiii. 7. It is the faith "de livered to the saints" for which believers must " contend." St. Jude 3. A bibliography of biblical inspiration is given on p. 195, note 3. 2 2 Tim. iii. 15. DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL 67 define. This faith sums up the revelations that are recorded in the Scriptures, which are not "of any private interpretation" inconsistent therewith.1 The Scriptures do not set forth in formal definitions or systematic order the faith which they contain; but none the less they bear witness to its contents in mani fold ways, and are exceedingly "profitable for teach ing." 2 So complete is their teaching in fact that the Church does not require anything to be believed "as an article of the Faith," or to "be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation," which "is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby." 3 Thus the Church and 1 2 St. Pet. i. 20. This is because the Scriptures were written under the impulse of the Spirit — the Spirit who also guides the Church. The Spirit cannot contradict Himself. 2 2 Tim. iii. 16. 3 Thirty Nine Arts., VI. In Article XX., the authority of the Church in controversies of faith is said not to permit her "to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation" besides what is taught in Holy Writ. In Article VIII, the reason alleged for accept ing the creeds is that "they may be proved by most certain war rants of Holy Scripture." The Council of Trent affirms, "Hanc veritatem et disciplinam [Christian faith and morals] contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus." Sess. IV. It does not say " partly " in the Scrip tures, but "in the Scriptures and in unwritten traditions," which is indisputable. The better class of Roman Catholic writers acknowl edge that all saving doctrine is somehow contained in Scripture, although Scripture netds ecclesiastical interpretation. Du Perron, Lettre tM.de Cherelles, CEuvres, p. 843. Veron, Regula Fidei, cap. i. § 2; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. Pt. I. ch. iii. §§ 16-20. The ancients were in agreement on this point. Thus St. Athanasius says, "The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves, avrdpicas, for the declaration of truth." Contra Gentes, i. 3; St. Cyril of Jerus., "Do not believe even me 68 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY the Scriptures are vitally related factors in the trans mission of divinely revealed truth; and, while it is the function of the Church to teach and define the faith, the Scriptures enable us to confirm and iUustrate what the Church teaches and defines.1 when I teach you these things, unless you receive the demonstration of what I announce to you from the divine Scriptures." Catech. I. iv. 17. St. Augustine, "Whatsoever ye hear [from the Scriptures] let that savour well unto you: whatsoever is without them refuse." Sermo de Pastor., c. xi. Cf. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 19, § 14. The presuppo sition of St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium is that "the Canon of the Scripture is perfect, and most abundantly of itself sufficient for all things," although he proceeds to show that, owing to its profundity, it needs to be expounded "according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense," ch. ii. Patristic catenas on this subject can be found in Pusey's Eirenicon, Vol. I., App. A; Cary's Testimonies to the XXXIX Arts., pp. 97-112; Beveridge, XXXIX Arts., VI; Browne, XXXIX Arts., VI. Field, Of the Church, Bk. III. ch. ii. App., cites later writers. Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. p. 5. names Roman Catholic writers who take a contrary view. He treats of the whole subject, pp. 5-25. Cf. Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, ch. iv.; Hooker, Eccles. Polity, I. xiv; Ottley, in Church Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 17-21; Brown and Baylee, Infallibility of Rome, pp. 211-410. 1 Salmon says that the formula, "the Church to teach, the Scrip tures to prove," comes from Dr. Hawkins, sometime provost of Oriel College, Oxford. Infallibility, p. 125. It is made use of by Gore, in his Mission of the Church; and by Ottley, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees. The idea, however, is ancient. But the phrase would be more ade quate if expanded into, "The Church to teach and define, the Scrip tures to confirm and illustrate." Dependence upon the joint authority of Church and Scripture is the formal principle of Rome, although the decree of papal infallibility contains language which, in effect, displaces catholic authority. The Council of Trent, Sess. IV., declares that the Synod "receives and venerates . . .' all the books of both the Old and the New Testament . . . and also the traditions . . : preserved by a continual succession DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL 69 A partial analogy and Ulustration of the relation be tween ecclesiastical teaching and biblical study is to be seen in the respective parts of the definitive school- teaching of natural knowledge, and the verification thereof by a study of nature itself. The complex phenomena spread out before a biblical student ex hibit the spiritual in much the same manner as physical phenomena manifest the natural, that is, in its proper objective setting, or in the concrete.1 If § 3. AU other forms of authority in the sphere of divine truth are subordinate to the ecclesiastical and biblical; and the teaching of each requires to be tested, and accepted or rejected, according to its agreement or disagreement with ecclesiastical and biblical doctrine. They constitute so many human agencies, so much machinery, sanctioned and employed by the Church; but no one of them is competent to hold its own, except so far as it is successful in truly exhibiting the mind of the Cathohc Church and the spiritual teach ing of Holy Scripture. This distinction between the Church corporate and all machinery and agencies in the Catholic Church." The Vatican Council reiterates this posi tion, in Sess. III. cap. i. The Eastern Church agrees. The Synod of Bethlehem (or Jeru salem), ch. vi (2nd decree of Dositheus), asserting the Scriptures "to be God-taught," says that "the witness also of the Catholic Church is . . . not of inferior authority to that of the divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the Author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church." Translated by Robertson, Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, pp. 112, 113. 1 Cf. ch. vii. § 9, below, for fuller treatment of this analogy. 70 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY that may be employed in the dogmatic office is vital to a proper conception of ecclesiastical infalU- bility. That the Church will always be guided somehow to teach saving truth sufficiently to the faith ful, we maintain. But her members are one and all falUble. The Church frames her dogmatic definitions through the agency of the members of the episcopal order, and this has meant in practice by means of Councils.1 But parents are constituted by divine providence, and sponsors by ecclesiastical ordering,2 to teach the young who are committed to their charge; and their teaching has a real authority within its limited sphere. But parents and sponsors have no authority to teach false doctrine, and their teaching ought therefore to be rejected if later study proves to its recipients its dis agreement with the Church's mind.3 It should be noted at this point that the burden of proof Ues always upon those who would reject the teaching of duly constituted authority, even when such 1 See ch. iv. § 4, below, on Episcopal Authority; ch. v. on Councils and Popes. 2 The Church exhorts sponsors in the Office of Baptism, "It is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught," etc. Cf. Ephes. vi. 4, on the authority of parents. "The mediaeval universities came to possess considerable human authority in doctrine, but only in relation to the control of university studies and privileges. See Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. xvii. Lacey, Elements of Doctrine, pp. 65-68, gives some useful remarks on the nature and extent of the authority of theologians. It is analogous in nature and extent to that of scientists generally. GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 71 authority is faUible.1 The teachings of such authorities as we have named may not be repudiated by those to whom they are legitimately given, unless it can be shown clearly that they do not correctly represent the mind of the Catholic Church. II. Grounds of Ecclesiastical Authority § 4. We have tried to show that the catholic view of ecclesiastical authority is credible, and consistent with the general methods of divine providence and with the requirements of sound reason. The acceptance of such authority is indeed grounded partly in considera tions drawn from natural experience and reflection. ^- (a) It is grounded in social relations; for religion is not a purely private affair, but involves corporate func tions and manifold lines of co-operation, co-operation that cannot attain its proper development except on the basis of a consensus of ideas, dependent in turn upon the acceptance of leadership and authoritative teach ing. These conditions are best fulfilled by a general acceptance of the authority of a corporate body or ecclesia, to which is conceded the control of rehgious doctrine as well as of corporate activities.2 1 Partly because an implicit basis of such authority is the teacher's presumed superiority of knowledge; and partly because the content of official teaching is, presumably at least, determined by higher and more secure authority. These presumptions are valid in each several case provisionally at least, and until shown to be unwarranted. Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. I., pp. 358-393, gives a patristic catena on private judgment. 2 Cf. ch. i. § 5, above; and pp. 56, 57. See also Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 166-167. 72 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY (6) It is natural to defer in any sphere of truth to the authority of those who have chiefly concerned them selves with the subject-matter of the inquiry, that is of experts. But it is in the Church that spiritual experts * are to be found, and the mind and judgment of the Church is the corporate expression of the conclusions of such experts, of their consensus in fundamental doctrines pertaining to salvation.2 This consensus is facilitated and protected from unintelligent and unspiritual vaga ries by the pecuHar advantages of spiritual knowledge which the corporate Hfe and atmosphere of the Church, and its educative institutions and customs, afford. (c) The consensus which is crystalHzed in ecclesiasti cal teaching has a weight and authority analogous to the consent of mankind in matters of general concern.3 It is the consent of the generality of those who are competent to arrive at conclusions in the sphere of spiritual things. St. Augustine's dictum, Securus judi cal orbis terrarum, although often diverted from its 1 Spiritual experts are those who devote themselves to spiritual things in a spiritual manner, for no other method is scientific in the spiritual sphere. This means that only the saints can become spiritual experts; and the Church is the true home of the saints. 2 It is, of course, more than this. The ecclesia docens is not merely the correlative of the ecclesia discens, but a corporate teacher, divinely appointed and peculiarly assisted of God in the task of proclaiming to successive generations the faith once for all delivered, without change of its substance. But this does not militate against our argument. 8 Cicero said long ago, De Natura Deorum, I. xvii, "that opinion respecting which there is a general agreement in universal nature must infallibly be true." Seneca expresses a similar view. Epis. nj. Cf. Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority, p. 7. GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 73 original meaning and apphcation,1 expresses an un doubted truth, that insular opposition to the common mind of aU who are in a position to judge inteUigently is not usuaUy 2 capable of rational defence. {d) FinaUy, the judgment of the existing CathoUc Church touching doctrine represents a survival of the fittest — of what has stood the test of time and of chang ing conditions, conditions made exceedingly diverse by the theological warfare that schism has accentuated and perpetuated. Doctrines which, without essential alteration, are capable of adjustment to the mutations of nineteen centuries of world-wide progress, thought, and polemic seem to belong to the category of things fundamental and permanent. But what we have de scribed as a survival of doctrine is in its formal aspect nothing else than the existing authoritative or dogmatic teaching of the CathoUc Church in its ecumenical capacity. No other body of opinion has held its own without subversion through so many changes and so many ages, and with so large a consensus of intelhgent and weU-tried judgment. To reject the authority of cathoUc dogma is to be bHnd to the significance of, such a unique survival. 1 St. Augustine was showing the insularity and presumption of the Donatists in setting themselves against the whole catholic world. He was not concerned with the claims of the Papal See. 2 We say " not usually," for in matters of progressive knowledge, even a single individual may discover good reasons for dissenting from universal judgment. The case is otherwise, however, with a faith which has been revealed and preserved in manners that make the nature of its contents always verifiable. 74 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY § 5. But we do not accept the Church's claim to teach with final authority in things pertaining to God on natural grounds merely. Were such grounds whoUy wanting, we should indeed find our acceptance of ecclesiastical authority more difficult to justify, for God is not wont to stultify the natural order in His arrangements. But the authority claimed by the Church belongs to the supernatural order, as well as to the natural, and requires for its vindication positive evidence that it has divine warrant and guarantee.^ If the Church requires us to Hsten to her as a messenger from God, she ought to be able to exhibit sufficient credentials; and our responsibifity to be guided always by truth, especially in matters pertaining to eternal Ufe, requires that we should demand such credentials.1 ^ The Church is able to meet this demand (a) by pro ducing her commission from God to make disciples of all nations; (&) by evidence that she is guided by the Holy Spirit into all the truth which she is commissioned 1 The habit of relying over much on a priori considerations is a notable characteristic of arguments in behalf of papal infallibility. But Roman writers do not deny the necessity of credentials. Mc- Nabb, Infallibility, p. 3, says, "No do trine of the infallibility of the Church can be separated from the Founder's plan of the Church; nor, if a man disputes the nature of that plan, can he be brought to a better mind except by an appeal to the Book." On p. 51, he says that opponents of his thesis "should not rest on metaphysical or psychological grounds of impossibility, but on historical grounds, since the question of the appointed organ is a matter of history, not of philosophy. . . . We must see what Christ our Lord appointed; and there the matter ends.'- GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 75 to teach; and (c) by estabhshing her own interior rela tion to the eternal Word of Truth, a relation which is grounded in the fact that she is the mystical body of Christ. § 6. In estabUshing the vaHdity of her claim to teach with authority, the Church makes use of evidence taken from Holy Scripture. This fact has led some to accuse her of reasoning in a circle. A beUever is often addressed somewhat as foUows: "You ask us to accept the teaching authority of the Church because you say it can be proved by the Bible; and then when we ask why we should accept the teaching of the Bible, you answer that we must accept the teaching of the Bible because the Church has authenticated it to us as the infaUible Word of God. Which then is the real basis ? You cannot rationally prove A by B and and then prove B by A." 1 Such a criticism is based on misapprehension. In the first place, when we cite the Bible to establish the Church's claim we do not necessarily appeal to the divine authority of the Bible, but to certain documents, in so far as they are trustworthy historical documents, 1 Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 53-55, raises this objection as against attempts to prove papal infallibility from Scripture. But he raises it in a form that is valid, if valid at all, against the use of Scripture to prove ecclesiastical authority. He gives the Roman Catholic Bishop Clifford's reply, and his own rejoinder, pp. 55-61. Bishop Clifford's line is substantially that taken immediately below. It is valid for ecclesiastical authority, but not for papal claims; for it cannot be proved from New Testament documents, in their historical aspect, or any other, that our Lord appointed the Papal See to wield the authority claimed in the Vatican decree. 76 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY and irrespectively of any higher claim. Whether the Bible is the Word of God or not, the Gospels have been shown to be trustworthy human sources of knowl edge touching the life and utterances of Jesus Christ. When we examine them in that light, we obtain suf ficient historical evidence as to the character, achieve ments and claims of the Person with whom they are concerned, to warrant the conclusion that His claims are vaHd, that He taught and acted with inherent divine authority, and that, in the exercise of such authority, He gave the commission on which the teaching authority of the Church is based. The se quence of argument, therefore, is {a) the historical facts which estabUsh the divine authority of Jesus Christ; (&) further historical evidence that He employed His authority to commission the Church which He Himself established to make disciples of aU nations; (c) the Church's teaching that the documents thus reUed upon for historical evidence are not only what criticism proves them to be, generally trustworthy as historical narratives, but also divinely inspired — the Word of God.1 1 Gore, in Lux Mundi, pp. 340-341, argues that the basis of the Church's teaching is historical. The Scriptures are used as historical documents prior to the question of their inspiration, which comes later in thought. Moberly in the same volume, grounds ecclesiastical authority in the fact of the Incarnation — a somewhat parallel but wider line of argument. Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. p. 84, takes a less valid line, although more congenial to those who lean simply on Scripture. He grounds biblical authority in the consent of com petent believers, and the authority of the Church in the inspired teaching of Scripture. The difficulty here lies in the fact that GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 77 There is also a second reply. If we accept Chris tianity at all — the historic system that was estab lished by our Lord and His apostles — we are obhged to recognize that ecclesiastical and bibhcal authority constitute in that rehgion joint factors in an organic system of divine teaching. As such they are mutuaUy related, and mutuaUy corroborative. The authority of each is from God, and it is misleading to place either one higher than the other. It is the manner in which they agree, in matters wherein agreement, unless super- naturally secured, would be antecedently unlikely, that constitutes immediate evidence to us that both are of divine appointment and possess a derivative divine authority.1 ecclesiastical authority was claimed and submitted to prior to the writing of the New Testament, and the New Testament presup poses even more than it asserts ecclesiastical authority. In short, its value for proof is historical rather than formal. Cf. Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 66-68; Wilberforce, Prins. of Authority, pp. 10-25. The Roman Schanz, Christian Apology, Vol. III., Pref. pp. xvi., xvii., quoted by Flint, Agnosticism, p. 545, says: "A man must hold before he can accept with safety the authority of the Church these seven preliminary truths — the existence of God, the possibility of revelation, the fact of revelation, the history of the Old Testament as substantially genuine, the substantially authentic character of the New Testament, the Deity of Christ, the institution of an enduring Apostolate. A man must be in reason satisfied about these points . . . unless, indeed, he clearly sees a way [other than ecclesiastical] of establishing the Divine authority of the New Testament Scrip tures." 1 The catholic believer depends upon the joint authority of Church and Scripture. These two may be considered separately, but they can not be set in antithesis, as though mutually opposed or independent authorities, without undermining the whole Christian system. 78 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY § 7. (a) Bearing in mind these general considera tions as to the sequence of evidences for ecclesiasti cal and bibUcal authority, we reckon as the primary and formal ground of ecclesiastical authority the fact that the Church was established in order to gather in all mankind and to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever" the Lord commanded. Moreover, we learn from the promise of Christ, that He would be with His Church "always, even unto the end of the world," that her teaching office, thus conferred, is perpetual.1 And, while in this argument we depend primarily upon the formal commission above described, which is a fact of history, we find the divinely instituted teaching function of the Church taken for granted in all the New Testa ment narratives as well as in many utterances of the contemporaries of our Lord which are preserved in that Uterature.2 It should be noticed that the commission of the Son of God to His Church estabUshes her teaching authority, whether she is endowed with infalUbiUty or not. That is, we are under obhgation to accept her authority as teacher, within the terms of her commis sion, because it is divinely appointed; and we are war ranted in believing that, when we do -so, we shall not 1 St. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. 2 For biblical references illustrating this see p. 65, note 1, above. To these may be added the sevenfold exhortation, "Let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches." Rev. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 22. The Spirit teaches the Church first, and, through her, believers. GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 79 be held accountable in God's sight for errors that are due to our obedience to His own arrangements. § 8. (6) Still making use of the NewTestamentdocu- ments as historical sources, we discover a second basis of the Church's teaching authority in the promise made by our Lord that the Holy Spirit should be with His Church to guide her into aU the truth which she was authorized to teach ; a and the further promise that the gates of hades should not prevail against her.2 So we find that the apostles were accustomed to base their teaching upon the fact of its having been revealed to them by the Spirit.3 And when the Church assembled in Council, its decrees were declared to define what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost." 4 Nor may we Unfit the efficiency of this guidance to the apostohc age. It is true that the apostles enjoyed a special inspiration that enabled them to add to the written Word of God. But it is impossible to accept 1 St. John xiv. 26. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." St. John xvi. 12, 13. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all the truth." Cf. St. John xiv. 16, 17. Also St. Matt. x. 20; St. Mark xiii. n; St. Luke xii. 12; Acts ii. 4; v. 32; vii. 51; xv. 8; 1 Cor. ii. 4, 10-14; xii. 4-11; Ephes. iii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 15; iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 14; Heb. x. 15; 1 St. John ii. 20; iii. 24; v. 6; Rev. ii. 7 (and parallels). These texts illustrate the ways in which the Spirit guides the Church and its members. 2 St. Matt. xvi. 18. 3 For an example, see 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. * Acts xv. 28. 80 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY our Lord's promise to be with His Church to the end of the world while putting a term to the fulfilment of His promise that the Holy Ghost should guide His Church into all the truth. The change that took place after the death of the apostles was simply this, that a guidance which had included a pecuhar inspiration of individual teachers was henceforth exercised in preserving in the corporate mind and consciousness of the CathoUc Church the truths which the apostles had proclaimed.1 § 9. (c) A third basis of the Church's teaching authority is the interior relation which exists between the Church as a corporate entity and her Head,2 who is the Truth, as weU as the Way and the Life.3 This relation is of the essence of the Church, for she is the Body of Christ by nature; 4 so that to be incorporated into the Church is to become a member of Christ, "of His body"5 as St. Paul expresses it. By virtue of this relation the Church is declared to be "the fulness of Him [Christ] that fiUeth all in aU." 6 1 See McLaren, Catholic Dogma, chh. vii., viii.; Wilberforce, Prins. of Authority, pp. 38-43. 2 St. Matt, xxiii. 8, 10; St. John xv. 1-8; 1 Cor. xi. 3; Ephes. i. 10, 22; ii. 20-22; iv. 15; v. 23-32; Col. 1. 13; ii. 19; iii. 11; Heb. iii. 6. 3 St. John xiv. 6. Cf. i. 14, 17. * Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12-27; Ephes. i. 22-23; *v- 4"-°> 13, 16- It is impossible to treat this description of the Church as metaphori cal. The term "Body of Christ" is indeed inadequate and symbolic, but the repeated use of it shows that it is the most literal description of the inner nature of the Church that human language can supply; and no thoughtful believer is likely to press it in a naturalistic sense. 6 Ephes. v. 30. « Ephes. i. 23. GROUNDS OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY 8l St. Paul emphasizes explicitly the truth that the rela tion of individual Christians to their Head — who is described by St. John as the Light of the world1 — is not only social but organic.2 The duty of "en deavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit" is grounded in the fact that "there is one body, and one Spirit," for those who are "caUed in one hope"; and our possession of " One Lord, one faith," and of the gift of "grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ," 3 is also dependent upon our membership in the body corporate. The ministry has for its divine purpose the "building up of the body of Christ; till we aU attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God . . . that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, . . . but speaking truth in love, may grow up in aU things into Him, which is the Head, even Christ; from whom aU the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love." It is this corporate relation to Christ in the Church, as thus significantly expounded, that constitutes the premise and warrant of St. Paul's exhortation that immediately foUows, "that ye no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding," etc.4 1 St. John i. 4, 9; viii. 12; ix. 5; Rev. xxi. 23. 2 Ephes. v. 14. 2 Ephes. v. 3-7. * Ephes. iv. 11-18. R.V. 7 82 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY It is true that St. Paul has in view a richer relation to Christ than that between learners and their teacher; but the thought is obviously included and enforced that the relation to the Word-incarnate which guaran tees the possibility of our assimilating the truths by which we must five is a corporate one, based upon the fact that the Church is the body of Christ.1 III. Ecclesiastical Infallibility § 10. Our consideration of the grounds of ecclesias tical authority enables us to make important deductions as to its characteristics and Hmits, and as to the prac tical results of accepting it. The futihty of objecting to the finality of ecclesiastical authority on the plea that it is human and liable to err becomes apparent. The Church's authority is not merely human. It is derivatively divine; for it is the authority not simply of a multitude of human individuals, collectively con sidered, but of a corporate body that is under super natural guidance and protection. It is, in fact, the authority of Christ and His Holy Spirit, mediated through a Church that is by nature the body of Christ, "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all."2 Such is at once the reason for our belief in ecclesiastical infalU biUty, and the principle by which to dissociate such infallibility from certain mechanical, unwarranted, and 1 See on this subject McLaren, Catholic Dogma, ch. vi.; Wilber- force, Prins. of Church Authority, pp. 28-33; Moberly, Admin, of the Holy Spirit, Lees. II.-IV., esp. pp. 46 et seq. Cf. § 12, below. 2 Ephes. i. 23. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 83 repeUant views with which it has sometimes been identified.1 Ecclesiastical infallibility means, briefly speaking, that no truly ecumenical teaching of the Catholic Church as to what is necessary to be believed, or essential to be practised, can be erroneous. In the following sections, however, we shall endeavour to show that this infaUibility is not intrinsic but derivative, not formal but practical, and to be defined in terms of a divinely promised and providentially secured result, rather than in those of a mechanical system. It does not extend to every subject-matter of teaching, or 1 The term infallibility, as applied to the Church, has come to stand with many for a. Deus ex machina, which, under external conditions susceptible of precise definition beforehand, will inevitably issue self-interpreting formula:, such as will not only close forever the questions with which they deal, but will produce infallible cer tainty and absolute peace of mind in all those who accept the authority of the Church in good faith. So wide-spread and inveterate is this misconception that we should be glad to abandon the term, if it were possible to find a suitable substitute and avoid the still graver misapprehension that such substitution would cause. But the truth for which the term stands in catholic theology is a vital one; and our responsibility for maintaining it constrains us to explain rather than abandon the term by which it has been signified by orthodox writers generally. That truth, stated practically and untechnically, is the absolute security that Christ will find ways of redeeming His promise of Spirit-guidance in and through the Church — a guid ance which can never cease to be sufficient for the faithful. It is Christ's infallibility that is at issue; and the Church is called in fallible simply and only because He has promised to teach us by means of His Church. Our faith is grounded in divine resourceful ness, not in a priori definitions of its formal methods. The opinions of representative Anglicans are given, with a general discussion of the finality of universal ecclesiastical judgments, by 84 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY beyond the Umits of the saving truths once for all revealed. It is possessed by the corporate ecclesia as a whole, not by any particular agents or machinery that may be employed in teaching. The wiU of the Holy Spirit, which is made known to us only by the event, determines the conditions and methods of the Church's infallible dogmatizing, rather than any a priori considerations of ours. Finally, the probation of faith is not subverted by ecclesiastical infalhbiHty, and cathoUc believers are neither deprived of the right nor reHeved of the obligation of endeavouring to lay hold of truth by the exercise of enhghtened reason. Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. iv. He well says, Vol. II. pp. 123, 124, "Whatever various modes of treating the authority of the Church there may have been, I believe that scarcely any Christian writer can be found, who has ventured actually to maintain that the judgment of the universal Church, freely and deliberately given, with the apparent use of all means, might in fact be heretical and contrary to the Gospel." A fact which astonishes Salmon (Infallibility, p. 274) — that even protestants think that to admit the Church's claim at all is to admit her infallibility — illustrates the impossibility of dissociating eccle siastical authority, as maintained historically, from the doctrine we are maintaining. Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, pp. 76-89, gives a valuable statement. Acknowledging that erroneous decisions may be and have been made in the name of the Church, he maintains that the Church, as distinguished from her agents, "is infallible, not because of her doctors and teachers, her councils and her bishops, but because . . . her Lord will not suffer her to fail . . . in spite of her members, just as she is One in spite of all our disunions, and Holy in spite of all our sins; Catholic in spite of all our narrow ness and sectarianism, and Apostolic in spite of all our unapostolic spirit." Salmon's Infallibility of the Church contains much that is valuable and suggestive, but is seriously vitiated by the misconcep tion of the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility which we are striving to avoid. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 85 § 11. The Church's infalUbiUty is not intrinsic, strictly speaking, but derivative. That is, it owes its existence, continuance, methods, and extent to divine overruling and guidance. The Church is constituted and commissioned to teach what has been revealed and commanded by her Lord. The guidance of the Spirit which is promised to her pertains to spiritual things only, and it is Hmited to the sphere of revealed truth and the dispensation of life which our Lord has committed to her to proclaim, preserve, and apply. The Church is not dehumanized; nor is she endowed with omnis cience in any sphere, or with infalUbiUty outside the sphere appointed. We know this not merely because of the Umitation of our Lord's commission and prom ise, but because subsequent history gives repeated evidence that the Church has to wait on scientific scholarship and practical experience for knowledge in other matters.1 Her authority is that of a witness to certain truths and principles which she received in apostoUc days. She is not an organ of new revela tions,2 nor does she enjoy any peculiar protection 1 It was so with the Copernican theory, which held its own in spite of the ecclesiastical condemnation of Galileo for maintaining it. Salmon tells the story, in Infallibility, pp. 230 et seq. 2 Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., pp. 55-67. Even the Vatican Council, Constit. I. ch. iv., says that the Roman Pontiffs "defined as to be held those things which . . . they had recognized as con formable with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised . . . that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or de posit of faith delivered through the apostles." 86 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY or immunity from error in matters not necessary to be beheved or practised for salvation.1 What is guar anteed by the Lord's commission and promise is this: that the ecumenical teaching of the CathoHc Church will never be permitted to misrepresent the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Church's mind and judgment, rightly understood, can always be ac cepted implicitly and followed with unique safety by those who seek to enter into the mind of Christ and attain to life eternal.2 § 12. The authority of the Church in doctrine is ultimately a corporate authority, and such infaUibility as the Church enjoys pertains to the whole corporate body. The illumination which is given by the Spirit to the Church is indeed shared in by her members, but in unequal measures and results. And no member or collection of members, whether private or official, can either think fully or Hve correctly according to the mind of Christ apart from, or in schismatic opposition to, the body corporate, which is the body of Christ. All the members of the body are mutually dependent. This appears clearly in the first Epistle to the Corin- 1 Thus the Church of pentecostal days was not guided to correct the belief of her members that the second advent of Christ was immediately impending. 2 On the limited sphere of the Church's infallibility, and the possi bility of general error in the Church touching extraneous matters, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. vi. Cf. Laud's Conference with Fisher, §§ xxi. pp. 154-158; § xxv. pp. 179-180 (Anglo-Cath. Liby.); Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority, pp. 23, 34; Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, ch. iii. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 87 thians.1 And even the fact that some of the members are constituted apostles, prophets, or teachers2 does not invalidate this principle. These ministers of Christ are also organs of the body — not external agents. The mind in the Church, therefore, which constitutes the norm of Christian behef, is the corporate mind. It is not a mere outcome of collective agreement between individuals, or a majority of them. Historically such agreement is at times difficult to verify. It is the mind that is controlled by the Spirit, taught by the Head, and participated in by the members in diverse meas ures and manners, according to the gifts which are imparted to each severaUy by the Spirit.3 So it is that bishops in Council may fail to express the corporate mind ; in which case the failure becomes mani fest in due season. Particular Churches and sees may err.4 None are exempt from the possibiHty of failure The Vatican Council defines the "infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed" as limited to "defining doctrine regarding faith and morals." Constit. I. cap. iv. 1 1 Cor. xii. 4-31. 2 1 Cor. xii. 28. Cf. Ephes. iv. 11. 3 On the corporate nature of ecclesiastical authority see Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, pp. 87-92; Moberly, Admin, of the Holy Spirit, Lees. II.-IV. Cf. § 9, above. 4 See Arts, of Religion, XIX., XXI. We treat of General Councils in ch. v. Pt. I. below. Protestant writers mistakenly regard the errors of Councils as proofs of ecclesiastical fallibility, as though a General Council were the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the corporate totality of that visible body of which Christ is the Head, the Holy Ghost the illuminating Spirit, the hierarchy the delegated ministry, and the baptized the members. See on this, Pearson, Creed, IX. pp. 610-617; Darwell Stone, Outlines of Dogma, note 34. 88 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY to be controlled by the one Spirit and by the mind of the cathoUc body corporate. But in manners deter mined by the Head and by the Spirit who iUuminates the body, the corporate Hfe which is centred in Christ continues ever to enlighten, sufficiently for their sev eral vocations, those members of the body who are faithful to the Church's ways and seek thus to walk according to the Spirit. This does not mean that the Church's teaching author- ityis without normal means of expressing itself determi- nately. The body possesses organs, and it is the divinely appointed office of certain of the Church's officers to formulate and publish the mind of the Church to her faithful members.1 But the members of the hierarchy do not possess a separate infalUbiUty of their own, apart from the body at large, or one which guarantees their invariable success in exhibiting the catholic mind. § 13. If infalUbiUty may not rightly be attributed to separate parts of the Church or to her ministers apart from the corporate ecclesia, neither have we any revealed warrant for connecting its exhibition invariably with any particular circumstances or methods of dogmatiz ing. The Church's voice is heard in many ways; and the faithful never depend absolutely upon any one of them for saving knowledge of what she is commissioned 'Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. v. 20; Ephes. iv. 11-16; 1 Thess. v. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 1-5; Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Cf. Mai. ii. 7. The limitation of ministerial authority appears in 1 Cor. iv. 2: "Moreover it is re quired in stewards, that a man be found faithful"; and in 2 Cor. i. 24: " Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 89 to teach.1 At all events, it is the will of the Spirit, made known only by the event, that determines when, how, and to what extent, the Church will be enabled to define the contents of her message in formal or dog matic terms of ecumenical and permanent authority.2 Forgetfulness of this has caused much difficulty. Attempts to define in a formal, mechanical, and a priori way the precise external methods and criteria of the Church's infaUible pronouncements have resulted in caricature, and have caused unnecessary doubts as to the existence of any ecclesiastical infallibility whatso ever. It needs, therefore, to be emphasized again and again, that, while we have ample warrant in Holy Scripture for being assured that the Church's working system, considered as a whole, wiU somehow be made by the Spirit to guide loyal souls aright, we have no basis of previous certainty that any particular attempt of the Church's ministers to define her teaching in dogmatic terms will succeed. And it foUows that, although the official utterances of the hierarchy have real authority, and are to be received loyally by the faithful under normal circumstances, they may not be permitted to retain their authority when proved to be contrary to the mind of the CathoUc Church touching 1 See below, ch. iv. §§ 1, 7. 2 The corporate and mysterious nature of the Spirit's guidance is well exhibited in McLaren's Catholic Dogma, pp. 55-58. He says: "The result ... of the coming [of the Spirit] was distinctly an nounced, but there was entire silence as to its modus." "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." St. John iii. 8. oo ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY necessary doctrine. The burden of proof in such cases Hes, of course, with those who dispute such utterances. The infalhbifity of the Church, in brief, is not so much formal as practical. It guarantees that those who are really faithful to the Church's ways will always be enabled thus, and not otherwise, to enter sufficiently into the knowledge of saving truth.1 § 14.1 We now come to a consideration of the objec tions raised against ecclesiastical infalUbiUty — that is, against "the doctrine that the Church, as a whole, by reason of the indwelUng divine Spirit, is rendered iner- rant in matters of faith and teaching," which means in the sphere of revealed and saving truth.2 And first 1 Ecclesiastical infallibility, if real, must be consistent in its work ing with the facts of history, which prove that at times much important error and confusion have existed in the Church. Such was notably the case during the Arian conflict. Bossuet did not exceed the apparent teaching of Church history when he said that that only is to be held impossible in the Church which, if it occurs, will destroy every safeguard for the truth. Defensio Declar. Cleri Gallicani, Lib. X. c. 36, cited by Palmer. See on the whole subject Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. vi. He says, "The promise of Christ to His Church did not extend to total exemption from error, but to a preservation of the truth revealed by Himself, pure and inviolate." Cf. Field, The Church, Bk. III. ch. *. 2 We quote from Baldwin, Die. of Philos., s. v., "Infallibility" — a detached witness, surely — to show how limited after all the Church's claim is. It is not one of inherent or human capacity, but of promised guidance and overruling from above, in the very limited sphere of teaching faithfully what has been received. Salmon, Infallibility, espec. ch. xv., who marshals the objections most comprehensively, has always in mind either the theory of papal infallibility or the Gallican view, stated in mechanical terms that we cannot acknowledge to be correct. Thus, pp. 274-275, he betrays the conviction that, if ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 91 in order come the objections to the possibiUty and to the alleged grounds of such infallibility. . {a) There is the objection that infaUibility, considered as an effect, transcends the agencies employed. The Church consists of falfible men, and a multiplication of faUibles cannot produce an infallible.1 The an swer is not far to seek. The Church is no mere col lection of falUble men, but also the body of Christ, energized and guided by the Spirit. In brief, ecclesias tical infaUibility is the result of supernatural causation, although exhibited in the sphere of what is, apart from divine grace and guidance, purely natural and human. The objection is a priori, and cannot hold, unless the we grant that, although the Church must somehow preserve the faith in its essence, yet may err otherwise and permit the faith to be encrusted with speculative vagaries, we surrender ecclesiastical in fallibility. We do nothing of the kind, for such infallibility is not claimed except for the preservation of the faith in its essence. If Salmon concedes that she must preserve that faith, he concedes the only doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility that has ecumenical author ity, and all that we are defending. On pp. 11 5-1 16, he illustrates ecclesiastical authority by a clock, which we have to consult, but which we also have to correct and regulate. The modern electric clock would be a better illustration, although its mechanical implications are not to be pressed. Such a clock is neither self-regulating nor in need of cor rection by those who consult it, but is kept right by being connected dynamically with a central regulator. So the Church is neither self- sufficient nor subject to our correction, but is guided from a divine centre by the Holy Spirit. It should be added that we trust an electric clock within the limited sphere of keeping time. Similarly we trust the Church within her appointed function of keeping the faith. 1 See Martineau, Seat of Authority, pp. 66-68. "Such as the natures are, separately taken, such will be the collective sum: no crowd of pigmies can add themselves up into a God." 92 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY evidence of the Church's supernatural constitution and guidance can be overthrown.1 (&) It is urged that the argument by which ecclesias tical infalUbiUty is supported is circular. The Scrip tures are depended upon to prove such infallibility, and when a reason is demanded for accepting the finality of biblical teaching we are told that the infallible teach ing of the Church assures us of this. Epitomizing a reply already made to this objection as raised against ecclesiastical authority in general,2 our contention is that in the first instance we appeal to Scripture only as a trustworthy record of facts. It is the nature of the facts that constitutes the basis of our assurance of eccle siastical authority and infaUibility. The doctrine of biblical inspiration is not a Hnk in this argument, but belongs to a later stage in thought. (c) A third objection is that we depend necessarily on private and fallible judgment in beUeving that the Church is infallible, for all our beHefs, so far as ours, 1 Liberal writers generally deny the supernatural origin and nature of the Church and its teaching hierarchy. Cf. Sabatier, Religions of Authority, pp. 19-39. Per contra, McLaren says, Cath olic Dogma, p. 116, "That which, in the order of nature, is a strong probability, associated with a suggestion of uncertainty, becomes, however, an infallible certainty in the order of grace. The ordinary perceptions of the universal mind, in their natural play and develop ment, are wonderfully true to truth, but in the realm of revealed truth they have the added gift of a superintending Divine Power whose specific function it is ... to take of the things that pertain to this higher sphere and show them unto -the Church." We have considered the supernatural in Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. ii. 2 See above, § 6 of this chapter. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 93 are the outcome of our own thinking.1 This objection is based upon the faUacy of making the nature of the conclusion proved nullify the value of the proof. The proof in this case is what is called -probable; and its force is estimated, as is the force of aU other arguments whatsoever, by human judgment. That the proof is sufficient we beUeve, and to refuse to have our judgment determined by it is to repudiate the fundamental laws of reason. The question is, do we beheve rationaUy in ecclesiastical infalUbiUty? If so, the fallibility of our beHefs does not justify the abandonment of this belief.2 A second reply can be made to the objection which we are considering. It proves too much. AU Chris tian theists acknowledge the infalUbiUty of God, and the absolute truth of any teaching which is known to come from Him. But aU human certainty is fallible, so that our certainty touching divine infalUbiUty is faUible. Is divine infalUbiUty to be rejected, there fore? It certainly is, if the objection before us is vaHd. It may be that some are led by the cathohc arguments which are intended to show human helpless ness apart from the Church to distrust men's success 'Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 47-49, 79, 279. Cf. pp. 57 et seq. on what he supposes to be the futility of accepting authority as infallible on the basis of merely probable argument. 2 It is a fact, of course, that believers do ultimately attain a cer tainty which the arguments on which it is supposedly based do not fully account for. But the "certainty of faith" is the fruit of grace, and cannot be exhibited in all its grounds to the unbelieving. Here rational opinion, however, that the Church is infallible comes within the pertinence of Butler's indisputable contention, that " probability is a very guide of life." Cf. Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 48-53. 94 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY in finding the Church they need;1 if so, their logic points to theological agnosticism, based upon man's mental helplessness apart from God. § 15. We come to objections based upon a con sideration of the supposed results of ecclesiastical infallibility. {d) It is said that an acceptance of ecclesiastical infallibility involves blind submission, a suppression of reason and an abdication of the right to verify ecclesias tical teaching by the Scriptures and by experience.2 Our reply is that it involves nothing of the kind. The purpose of the Church's divine guidance, and conse quent infallibility within its sphere, is to secure that the truth shall be taught. This does not, however, guarantee infallible certainty on the part of beUevers; and it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Church exacts blind submission to her teaching, without regard to men's personal assurance of its truth. On the con trary, she welcomes every effort of her children to verify her doctrine, whether by Scripture or by other means, in order that their faith may be fortified and made secure. Moreover, assuming that the believer is abso lutely certain as to the Church's infallibility, and free from doubt as to the precise content of her ecumenical doctrine, he will still have need to exercise his reason along the usual lines of verification. The removal of uncertainty is not the only motive and result of verifica tion of authoritative teaching. There is also the 1 Such is Salmon's plea, Infallibility, p. 55. 2 See Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 1 16-124. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 95 deepening, enriching, and broadening of one's under standing of truth in its relations, bearings, and appUca- tions. The Church's authority is not prejudiced by an inteUigent assimilation of her teaching, but is immensely fortified before the world when her disciples are found to be competent to give reasons for the hope that she has taught them to cherish. It is true, as Salmon says,1 that the Church's teaching is more like that of a medi cal lecturer, who expects his listeners to verify for themselves what he says, than Hke that of a physician, to whose instructions his patients submit without ques tion. But the difference does not He in the fallibility of one authority and the infaUibihty of the other. It Hes in the respective ends in view. The medical lecturer chaUenges verification because he seeks to make masters of medicine, and his possession of infallibility would not reduce the necessity of such a method for such an end.2 So the Church seeks to make masters of spiritual knowledge. The inference is obvious. She welcomes on the part of her disciples the free investigation that is necessary to such an end.3 1 Infallibility, pp. 51, 52, 116. 2 The implication of Salmon, echoed by liberal writers, is that the task of authority should be to render itself useless by the success of its work in equipping self-sufficient scholars. So far as this is true, it applies only to individual pupils, and to spheres within which men do not easily lose hold upon what they have learned, as they do in spiritual matters. An authority charged with teaching every generation can, of course, never become useless or antiquated. 3 We do not deny that prelates and popes have often shown an intolerance of critical scholarship that is deplorable. But in this they fail to represent the ecumenical mind. 96 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY (e) It is objected again that the theory of ecclesiastical infalhbiUty is the result of a purely a priori and mis taken notion that God must somehow, if He wflls to save mankind, put us in possession of an easy means of arriving at infaUible certainty touching truths neces sary to be believed for salvation. Therefore the Church is viewed as a ready oracle, an infaUible guide for the absolute determination of all troublesome questions.1 We do not deny that ecclesiastical authority has some times been maintained in ways that suggest such an assumption, which indeed vitiates many a defence of papal claims. But ecclesiastical infalUbiUty, rightly understood, does not necessarily involve the idea of in faUible guidance, which ought to be distinguished clearly from infallible authority. As we have said above, the purpose for which the Church is made to be infaUible is that the truth shall be taught to every generation. Whether men will be correctly guided by such teaching depends upon themselves. We are as firmly convinced as the objector that there is no short and easy method of attaining certainty in the truths of our religion, and no means whatever of acquiring infallible certainty. It suffices for our guidance that the truth is infalhbly taught, and that we can, by the obedience of faith, attain to sufficient subjective assurance and knowledge for our eternal welfare.2 1 Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 97 et seq., and passim, raises this diffi culty, and confuses the claim of infallible authority with that of infallible guidance. 2 The craving for that peace which is conditioned by the banishment of doubt, and by final assurance of the truth, is perfectly legitimate; ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBDLITY 97 (/). Another objection is that an acceptance of ecclesiastical infalUbiUty has the effect of substituting a single and therefore weak basis of certainty for the numerous and mutuaUy corroborative lines of verifica tion and proof of which non-cathohc believers make use.1 Waiving the question as to the strength of ecclesi astical authority as a basis of Christian certainty,2 we deny that any such substitution is involved. As has been said above, the Church welcomes every Une of honest investigation whatsoever. It is the Church's function to proclaim divine truth, and that with in faUible guidance from above; but every possible Hne of corroborative evidence Ues open to the behever's use — especiaUy the study of Holy Scripture, which the Church teaches to be the veritable Word of God written. but its satisfaction is a goal to be reached only by humble submission to a probation in which anxious truth-seeking has its place and precious value. The Church's teaching, while leaving this proba tion unaltered, constitutes a needed security that our progress towards the full certainty of faith shall not be on mistaken lines. In this light we adopt Bishop McLaren's words, Catholic Dogma, p. 22: "Doubt needs to be assured that there is an infallible authority for faith to rest upon with the joy and peace of certitude. There is a rock of ages in this turbulent world. No storms can undermine it, no upheaval from beneath can jostle it from its calm equipoise. It eternally rests upon the being of God who is the Ultimate Authority." 'Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 279-280. We refer to this work so often because it is the most important attack on ecclesiastical infalli bility with which we are acquainted. None the less the book con tains much valuable matter. 2 Certainly its infallibility does not constitute it to be the sole factor in acquiring spiritual knowledge. 8 98 ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY {g) It is urged that the theory of ecclesiastical infalU biUty cannot consistently be maintained by those who acknowledge a development of ecclesiastical doctrine or an increasing maturity of the Church's hold upon her faith.1 We reply that that depends upon what is meant by development. If it means that the Church alters her mind, and corrects her former teaching, within the sphere of her authority to teach necessary saving truth, then indeed to concede such development is to concede her fallibility. But, if the development referred to means a deeper analysis of her faith, a fuller exphcation of it, a more scientific co-ordination of its contents, and a richer apphcation of unchanging truth to the changing exigencies of human Hfe,2 surely there is no evidence in such development of error subse quently corrected, or of fallibility. That particular lines of development have occurred within the Church which suggest fallibility we do not deny; but none of these developments have ecumenical authority,3 and none of them affect the truth of our contention. {h) Finally, it is said that the theory of ecclesiastical infalliblity is unworkable; for the dogmatic office of the Church in her ecumenical capacity has been effectually brought to an end by ages of schism, so as to be dead or at least moribund. Unless believers accept the papal claims, it may be urged, where can they go to hear the 1 Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 274-277. 2 See below, ch. ix. Pt. I., for a consideration of these lines of de velopment. 3 Thus such as are distinctively Roman, distinctively Oriental, or distinctively Anglican, have no such authority. ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY 99 living voice of the Catholic Church? A Church that cannot decide a single question is surely not in fallible.1 We do not of course, as will appear later, take refuge from this difficulty by accepting the papal claims.2 But the' difficulty is more apparent than real. As we show elsewhere, the framing of new ecumenical definitions and decrees of faith is but one of the manifold ways in which the Church fulfils her dogmatic and teaching function.3 A living voice is not necessarily to be iden tified by its issuance of fresh definitions, nor may we maintain on a priori grounds that more definitions are required than those which the Church framed of old and everywhere continues to repeat and enforce. Every thing which the Church universally requires, whether coUectively or diffusively, to be taught to her children is her living voice. So long, therefore, as we find, as we do find, that the Church's ancient faith is embodied in every part of the CathoHc Church in what is ordered to be said or done by her ministers, we are entitled to claim that she has not ceased to exercise her teaching office. And she does exercise it in a manner that has the effect of making every controversy of faith tempo rary, and every heresy short-lived. No more may be required ; and it is not promised that the Church shaU have power or permission to stifle erroneous doctrine at 1 Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 269-273, 278-280. 2 See below, ch. v. Pt. III. The only justification for doing so would be the conviction that the voice of the Papal. See is the voice of the Catholic Church. 3 See below, ch. iv. §§ 1, 7. loo ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY its birth.1 She simply continues to sing her ancient song, in tones that can be heard by those who put their ears to the ground and Hsten. Those who count faUible votes and Hsten only to innovating preachers are often mis led, but not by the Church, whose creeds and other official formularies are available for all. § 16. The distinction should be noted between the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church. The former signifies the invariable truth of the Church's ecumenical teaching, the latter the certainty that the Church as a whole will never become apostate or cease to exist. Her indefectibiUty is guaranteed by the promise that the gates of hades shaU not prevail against her.2 But we must not read too much into this promise. It is not guaranteed that the Church's loyalty to Christ will always be conspicuous. The Spirit's protection has not in fact prevented even episcopal time-serving; and the Arian conflict is a significant reminder that no extent or degree of unfaithfulness is impossible in the Church that does not bring to an end her relation and allegiance to her Lord, His promise should be inter preted consistently with what He has aUowed to hap- 1 "Truth does not employ coercive measures, and therefore men who do not use the eyes of thesoul will not be forced to perceive it." McLaren, Cath. Dogma, p. 13. 2 St. Matt. xvi. 18. Cf. xxviii. 20. The Church's perpetuity is predicted in 1 Sam. vii. 10-16; Psa. xlviii. 8; lxxxix. 29-37; Isa. lxi. 8, 9; Dan. ii. 44; and elsewhere. It is implied in St. Matt. xxiv. 14; St. John xiv. 16; and its consistency with the existence of much evil within is indicated in the parables of the Kingdom, esp. St. Matt. xiii. 36-42, 47-50. ECCLESL\STICAL INFALLIBILITY 101 pen in the Church. Otherwise we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the promise has not been fulfilled.1 1 On the Church's indefectibiUty and perpetuity, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. I. ch. i, § 2, who gives useful ancient and modern references; Field, The Church, i. 10; Pearson, Creed, Art. IX. Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. I. pp. 204-249, gives a patristic catena. CHAPTER IV THE DOGMATIC OFFICE I. Its Nature and History § i. The Church exercises her teaching authority in manifold ways: for example, by {a) the preach ing and other pastoral instruction of those who are appointed to teach her doctrine; * {b) catechetical instruction of children and converts;2 (c) the ecclesi astical calendar, and biblical lessons which are arranged so as to exhibit its meaning; {d) appointed rites and offices, which derive their teaching value from the principle, lex orandi, lex credendi; 3 {e) dogmas. The dogmatic office of the Church in its strict sense is concerned with the framing, imposition and continued maintenance of dogmas;4 and ecclesiastical dogmas are formal definitions of truths necessary to be believed 1 See § 4, below, on the teaching authority of the ministry. 2 See p. 70, above. 3 See below, § 13. * On the dogmatic office, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. III. ch. v.; Pt. IV. chh. i.-vii.; Stanton, Place of Authority, ch. iv.; Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, paper II., by W. E. Collins; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, ch. xiii.; Outlines of Dogma, ch. x.; Strong, Authority, ch. vi.; Mozley, The Dogmatic Office, in Lees, and Other Theol. Papers; Bethune-Baker, Early Christian Doctrine, pp. 5, et seq. That the Church possesses such an office is acknowledged by the Anglican Churches, Arts, of Religion, XX. 102 ITS NATURE AND HISTORY 103 for salvation.1 These dogmas possess, of course, the authority of the Church that imposes them; so that to reject any one of them is to reject the Church's teaching authority. It should be added that catholic or ecumeni cal dogmas include only such definitions as are imposed by the entire CathoHc Church. These dogmas are Umited in range; but the verities which they define are central ones which imply the entire faith of the Church, so that those who accept them in good faith, and conform to the Church's dis- ciphne, are sufficiently safeguarded from every funda mental error.2 § 2. The Church evidently possessed a "form of 1 See Klee, Manuel de L'Histoire des Dogmes, pp. 36, 37; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. Aiy^o; Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Test., ibid.; Lightfoot, in Coloss. ii. 14; Armitage Robinson, in Ephes. ii. 15; Baldwin, Die. of Philos., s. v. "Dogma;" Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. v. "Doctrine" and "Dogma." In classical Greek A6yna means (a) opinion or resolution; (6) decree. It means decree in the New Testament, e.g. in St. Luke ii. 1; Acts xvi. 4; xvii. 7; Ephes. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14, 20. Ecclesiastical use combines (o) and (6), enforcing an opinion or teaching upon the faithful in the form of a definition and decree of faith. It is a narrower term than doctrine, for not all doctrines are decreed in dogmatic form; and it should not be confused with theological explication, by which the implications of the truth or fact, baldly defined by" dogma, are exhibited. See Moberly, in Lux Mundi, pp. 250-255. Gore says, Creed of the Christian, p. 3, "A dogma is a . . . truth, stated in such a plain way that it can be used as a tenet, or part of the creed of a society of men, and taken for granted in all the affairs of life, and serve as a common standard of reference." 2 This is what the House of Bishops of the American Church meant by describing the creeds, in their Declaration on Unity of 1886, as a "sufficient statement of the faith." See p. 80 of the Journal of the Gen. Conv. of 1886. 104 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE sound words" J in apostoUc days. At all events the duty of continuing faithful to what had been taught in the Church was earnestly' inculcated.2 Somewhat early in the second century we discover traces of creeds, and the earhest creeds are sufficiently ahke in structure and phraseology to suggest a common and apostoUc source,3 the variations being due to an oral method of transmission and to diverse local conditions and influ ences. These primitive creeds, or versions of the apos toUc form of sound words, are concerned primarily with the divine Persons; and appear to be the result of an expansion of the baptismal formula. They were 1 2 Tim. i. i3, 14. Cf. Rom. x. 10. 2 Such inculcation is either illustrated or implied in Rom. vi. 17; xvi. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; Gal. i. 8; Ephes. iv. 14; 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2; 1 Tim. i. 3; vi. 12-14, 20, 21; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. iii. 10, 11; Heb. v. 12; vi. 1, 2; xiii. 9; 2 St. Pet. ii. 21; 2 St. John 10; St. Jude 3. On the question of the apostolic origin of the creed, see Beveridge, Works, Vol. I. pp. 109-111; Thorndike, Prins. of Christian Truth, I. vii. 1-9. Some writers regard 1 Cor. viii. 6; xv. 3, 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. vi. i, 2, as echoes of credal language. 3 It is thought that echoes of a primitive creed can be seen in Ignatius, ad Trail, 9; ad Smyrn., 1, 2, 3; Aristides, ApoL; Justin, Apol. I. 61; Irenaeus, adv. Haeres., I. 10. 1; iii. 4. 2; iii. 24. 1; iv, 23. 7; Tertul., De Praes. Haer., 14; Adv. Prax., 2; De Virg., Vel., 1. See Die. of Christian Biog., s. v. "Creed," by Swainson; Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s.v. "Creed"; Die. of Christian Antiq.,s.v. "Creed"; Catholic Encyc., s. v. "Apostles' Creed"; Harvey, Hist, and Theol. of the Three Creeds, Vol. I. pp. 1-75; Swainson, Apostles' and Nicene Creeds; Lumby, Hist, of the Creeds; Heurtley, Hist, of the Earlier Formularies of Faith; Swete, The Apostles' Creed; Turner, Hist, and Use of Creeds, being Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., No. 85; Sanday, in Journal of Theol. Studies, Oct. 1899 and Oct. 1901. Very searching investigation into the origin of the creed was ITS NATURE AND HISTORY 105 probably employed chiefly for the instruction of cate chumens.1 But the rise of heresies in the Church caused the insertion of words or phrases intended to define more precisely the truths that had suffered from perversion or denial. Thus the Roman version of the creed appears to have been elaborated in the second century against certain Gnostic errors. At aU events, when the Church had to deal with the Arian heresy at the CouncU of Nicea, the method employed was to protect the truth of our Lord's Godhead by adopting an eastern version of the creed with sUght additions, including the phrase " consubstantial (o/wrovo-tos) with the Father." 2 This action became a precedent for succeeding CouncUs; and, as a result, the Nicene Creed received ecumenical sanction, along with certain additional decrees of faith, and became crystaUized in form.3 undertaken by Caspari (d. 1892), who maintained its eastern origin. Kattenbusch maintained its Roman origin. McGiffert, Apostles' Creed (1902), pp. 9-21, holds that it was framed at Rome in order to shut out Marcionite Gnosticism. He assumes that the creed cannot have originated much earlier than the appearance of indis putable traces of it, and does not make allowance for the care with which the ancients concealed Christian mysteries from public knowl edge. Cf. Heurtley, Hist, of Earlier Formularies, pp. 7, 8. 1 Heurtley, op. cit., pp. 3-6; Gumlich, Christian Creeds, p. 9. 2 See Bull, Defence of the Nicene Faith, Bk. II. ch. i.; Newman, Arians, ch. iii. § i. 3; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. ofcrios; Percival, Seven Ecum. Councils, pp. 3, 4; Bright, Age of the Fathers, Vol. I. pp. 86-94; Hefele, Hist, of the CouncUs, Bk. I. § 9; Bk. II. §§ 32-34. 3 The history of the development of the Nicene Creed is given in Smith and Cheetham, Die. of Christian Antiq., s. v. "Creed," §§ 13- 17; Hort, Two Dissertations. 106 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE Western creeds were crystallized more slowly, but in due time assumed the form known as the Apostles' Creed.1 The so called Athanasian Creed seems to have originated in Gaul, early in the fifth century. It is primarily a hymn, but has practically acquired the status and authority of a cathoUc creed.2 These three creeds, and the decrees of faith which were adopted by the Ecumenical Councils, constitute catholic dogmas in the strict sense of that phrase.3 Other ecclesiastical formularies exist that correctly de fine, or at least are consistent with, the mind of the whole Church touching the matters covered by them; but their formal authority is local only. They con stitute provincial rather than cathohc dogmas. Their •Smith and Cheetham, Die. of Christian Antiq., s. v. "Creed," §§ 18-23; Swete, Apostles' Creed; McGiffert, Apostles' Creed, pp. 21-36. 2 Waterland's History of the Athanasian Creed is not wholly antiquated, although in need of correction in detail by later studies. See Cazenove, in Die. of Christian Biog., s. v. "Quicunque Vult"; Smith and Cheetham, Die. of Christian Antiq., s. v. "Creed," §§ 24 el seq.; Ommaney, Crit. Dissert, on the Athan. Creed; A. E. Burn, Introd. to the Creeds, pp. 124-185. Notes in the Journal of Theol. Studies on Eusebius of Vercelli, by C. H. Turner (Oct. 1899, p. 126) and A. E. Burn (July, 1900, p. 592). 3 For the ecumenical creeds, see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom; Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica; Gumlich, Creeds and Confessions. For the decrees of faith of the Ecumenical Councils, Bindley, Ecu menical Documents of the Faith; Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils; Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (a Latin compendium which includes other documents having authority in the Roman Church). For a brief survey of the ecumenical decrees of faith, see below, ch. v. § 6. ITS NATURE AND HISTORY 107 phrases, at all events, are not binding in every portion of the CathoUc Church.1 § 3. This brief account of the development of dogma wiU help us, perhaps, to consider the purpose of the Church's dogmatic office; and, later on, to define its agency, method, and Hmitations. Its purpose is threefold: {a) To instruct converts to Christianity and the young in the leading truths of their religion; (6) to exclude erroneous definitions and denials of these truths; (c) to preserve the original faith, for the benefit of successive generations, until the end of the world.2 Obviously, in order to fulfil these ends, the Church must seek to make her definitions as precise as possible, provided their range is Hmited to what has been clearly and certainly revealed. She must also endeavour to employ terms that are capable of being accepted per manently in the same meaning. If the creeds are to serve their purpose permanently, "fixedness of inter pretation" is of their "essence."3 1 The authority of provincial formularies is considered below, ch. v. § 7. A survey of the chief Provincial Councils and their de crees is found in § 8 of the same chapter; and § 9 deals with the Anglican Articles. 2 See Illingworth, Reason and Revel., pp. 121-132. 3 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol., ch. vi. § 15; and the Pastoral Letter of 1894 contained in the Journal of the General Convention of 1895, pp. 382, 411 et seq. The word "interpretation" is often used in the larger sense of exhibiting the implications and bearings of the sub ject-matter. In that sense credal interpretation grows with widening knowledge and experience. We are here concerned with the neces sary and dogmatic meaning of the creed itself, strictly considered. 108 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE It is a serious mistake to suppose that the Church seeks to enlarge the area of her definitions beyond necessity, or to crystaUize orthodoxy in the forms of thought of a particular age or philosophy. The Church has been remarkably sparing in her definitions, and ecumenical dogmas cover only such truths as consti tute, so to speak, the ultimate premises of Christian thought and belief, to deny or alter which would sub vert the religion of Jesus Christ.1 If terms are bor rowed from philosophy — this is sparingly done — their meaning is determined not by their source, but by their new and dogmatic context, and by their employment to define what has been handed down in the Church from the beginning. 1 That this is so can be illustrated by comparing the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils with the elaborate formularies of the reforma tion period, none of which have ecumenical authority. The fact is that the elaborateness of Confessions of Faith is usually in inverse proportion to their catholic value; for elaborateness of doctrine is pre judicial to its world-wide adoption, and an Ecumenical Council is so called because its decisions have been thus adopted. The cry, "Back to Christ " (see s. v. in Hastings', Die. of Christ) is based to some extent on the mistakenly supposed contrast between the Christ of the Gospels and of the creeds. Ritschl treats faith as not belief in doctrine, but trust in a living person. But the very purpose of dogma is, of course, to shut out errors that undermine such trust, and deprive us of the Christ of the Gospels. Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 34-43, states and answers the objections to dogmatic definitions touching Christ's person based on aestheti- cism, anti-doctrinal morality and subjective pietism. Cf. his Univer sity Serms., 2d Series, VII. pp. 102-104; Moberly, in Lux Mundi, pp. 243-244, Fairbairn, Philos. of Relig., pp. 3-5, who maintains that, without the conception of Christ defined by the Councils, "the Christian religion would long ago have ceased to live." HOW EXERCISED 109 In brief, the purpose of the Church's dogmatic office is not scholastic, or phUosophical, or restrictive of real freedom of thought. "Free thought" should mean thought that is not hindered from attaining its legitimate end — the truth. All thought is based on premises, and it is free in proportion to the truth and adequacy of these premises. " The truth shall make you free." r CathoUc dogmas furnish thinkers with true premises, and thus make for freedom of thought. This cannot be gainsaid except on the assumption that these dogmas are not reaUy true.2 II. How Exercised § 4 We come now to the agencies, methods, and Hmitations of the Church's dogmatic office. It determines the manner of her use of agents that, as we have seen, the Church's teaching authority is corporate, and cannot be displaced by that of any ministerial agents whatsoever; so that, whatever agents may be employed, their authority is subordinate to hers, and the ultimate force" of their teaching depends upon its agreement with what she has transmitted to them to teach.3 The dogmatic office obviously can only be exercised >St. John viii. 32. 2 Liddon, Univ. Serms., 1st Series, IV. pp. 67-78; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 187-190; E. T. Green, The Church, pp. 139-141; Illingworth, Reason and Revel, pp. 6-7; Garbett, Dogmatic Faith, pp. 22-26. 3 Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 87-88; Palmer, The Church, VoL II. pp. 76-80, 106-109. HO THE DOGMATIC OFFICE in an official manner, that is, by the employment of official agents.1 The divinely appointed organization of the Church determines broadly what agents shall be employed. Christ has given to the ministry the function of representing the Church officially in the matter of teaching.2 And, since aU the powers and functions of the ministry are possessed by, and proceed from, the highest order, the episcopate,3 the fulfilment of the dogmatic office pertains pecuHarly to the bishops of the Church. No human appointments can be vaHd which subvert divine arrangements; and the commission to make disciples of all nations was given by Christ, in the first instance, to the apostles and those who should succeed to their ministerial functions.4 It remains, however, that the episcopate must act 1 The fact that Roman writers urge this in their pleas for the necessity of the papal system does not alter its truth. It is a non sequitur that the Church must always employ the Papal See. 2 Acts xx. 28; Rom. x. 15-17; 1 Cor. iv. 1; xii. 28-29; Ephes. iv. 11-15; 2 Tim. ii. 2; Heb. xiii. 7-9, 17; 1 St. Pet. v. 1-4. 3 The Church is built upon the apostles and prophets, Ephes. ii. 20. 4 St. Matt, xxviii. 19-20. The fathers were agreed touching this arrangement. See, e.g., Ignatius, passim; Iren., Adv. Haer., III. iii. 1-4; iv. 1; IV. xxvi. 2; xxxiii. 8; V. xx. 1; Chrys., Homil. in Tit., ii. 2; Cyprian, Ep. ad Florent. Pupian. lxix; Ambrose, De Off., i. 1-4. The unique teaching authority of the episcopate is illustrated by the reluctance with which the preaching function was conferred on inferior clergy. Thus, when St. Augustine was authorized to preach during his presbyterate, it was recognized to be unprecedented in Africa. On the subject of the teaching authority of the episcopate, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. ii; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 331-347; Rackham, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 98-108. HOW EXERCISED III representatively and constitutionally. The bishops do not constitute an independent body, but are organs of a Catholic Church.1 They are empowered to speak for the Church in a sense not true of others. But "for the Church" means in accordance with the mind of the corporate and cathohc body. Infallibility, what ever it may signify, pertains to the Church as a whole, so that no episcopal decision can stand when found to violate the corporate mind of the Church. Even Gen eral CouncUs can err, and have erred; but, in such event they are repudiated by the Church in due season. We shaU treat of Councils, and also of papal deci sions, in the next chapter. § 5. The method of the Church's dogmatic office is necessarily determined by its end, and by circumstances of the moment. Its end is, as we have seen, to make known in accurate terms such contents of the primitive faith as seem desirable to be defined for the guidance and safety of the faithful in the way of salvation. The method is primarily one of positive definition of what has been revealed.2 The Church does not undertake 1 The whole body of the faithful is a "royal priesthood" : 1 St. Pet. ii. 9. The exhortation to contend for the faith is given to all. St.. Jude 3. See Rackham, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 100- 104, 134-139; Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. iii.; Jer. Taylor, Dissuasive, Pt. II. Bk. I. § 4; Geo. Moberly, Admin, of the Holy Spirit, pp. 66-74 et passim. 2 There is indeed a negative element in the purpose of dogma — the exclusion of erroneous notions: Maccoll, The Creed, pp. 1-6. But the supreme purpose is positive, to define what has been received. Gore emphasizes the negative aspect in Bamp. Lees, pp. 116 et seq.; and Dissertations, p. 170. Cf. Moberly, in Lux Mundi, p. 240. 112 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE to dogmatize as to the proper solution of speculative problems suggested by her doctrines; and the fact that her Councils have not faced such problems is an evi dence of their faithfulness to the task set before them. It is not a proof of failure of duty.1 The method of the dogmatic office is determined also by circumstances of the moment — especiaUy by the appearance of heretical teaching, and the necessity of defining imperilled truths in terms that will exclude such . heresies from acceptance by the faithful.2 This does not cause the Church's definitions to become negative, although her choice of terms is determined by the purpose of excluding error. Thus the positive end of defining truth is retained, while negations and subver sions are guarded against. And, lest the Church's mind touching heresy should escape notice by reason of the positive form of her dogmas, the heresies which occasion new definitions are specifically condemned and anathematized by the Councils that put these dogmas forth.3 •That they did not face these problems is referred to by Gore, Dissertations, p. 162; Ottley, Incarn., Vol. II. pp. 109-1 10: cf . Vol. I. *P- 323 (<*)• 2 Many of the ancients shrunk from resort to conciliar action in doctrine. But the clearest proof of the Church's reluctance to dog matize is seen in the notable fact that she has never in one single instance framed a new dogmatic definition spontaneously. Every one of her ecumenical definitions has been wrung from her by serious and aggressive heresy. See Beveridge, Works, Vol. I. pp. 117-120; Illingworth, Divine Immanence, p. 181. 3 In anathematizing, the Church was but continuing New Testa ment usage. 1 Cor. xvi. 22; and espec. Gal. i. 8, 9; "But though we, HOW EXERCISED 113 The Church has always assumed that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and that they contain all neces sary saving doctrine.1 But heretics also appeal to Scripture, although in support of error, and the Church is thus compeUed to define, in extra-scriptural language, what is the true teaching of Scripture. This teaching she assumes to be identical with her own traditional faith.2 Her dogmatic method, accordingly, is to determine or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema"; etc. Cf. St. Matt. x. 14, 15; St. Luke x. 10-12. The woes denounced by our Lord on the pharisees, St. Matt. xx. 13-33, are ad rem. See Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s.v. "Curse." It is to be remembered that ecclesiasti cal anathemas are but conventional methods of exercising the divinely appointed and judicial function of binding. St. Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 17, 18. They also have only a present and conditional force, being effective only so long as the offence continues, and in no sense antici pating the final judgment. No doubt the exercise of penal judgment in the Church is attended by danger of loss of charity; but no more so than is all penal justice, and the Church may not abdicate her bind ing function. See Suicer's Thesaurus, s. v. 'Av&Sepm; Bingham, Antiq., Bks. xvi., xvii. The damnatory clauses of the Athanasian hymn echo St. Mark xvi. 16, certainly of primitive origin, although not written by St. Mark. They have reference to wilful and per sistent heretics and apostates, and presuppose knowledge of the true Gospel on their part. See Moberly, in Lux Mundi, pp. 258-260. The difficulty which lies behind much writing on this subject is non- belief in men's responsibility for their opinions. This responsibility is no doubt limited in each instance by the extent of providentially afforded opportunities, but no man may neglect without sin such opportunities of attaining to a true faith. 1 Cf. above, ch. iii. § 2, pp. 66-69, and note 3, p. 67. 2 Tertullian's emphatic refusal to argue with heretics as to the meaning of Scripture is well known. De Praes. Haer., xix. Cf. Vincent of Lerins, Comm., ii., xxv. That the Church seeks only to 9 114 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE and define what has been handed down in the Church from pentecostal days, touching the doctrine in con troversy. The precise content of traditional doctrine is determined by comparison of the traditions of local Churches and sees, as defined by their episcopal repre sentatives; and that which is thus ascertained to have been handed down in all the Churches is declared to be the mind of that Holy Spirit who both guides the Church and inspires the Scriptures.1 New terms are adopted, and these are sometimes borrowed from metaphysical sources. But, as has been stated above, the purpose for which they are employed is simply to define accurately the teaching of Scrip ture and the Church. No new faith is adopted, nor is any speculative philosophy sanctioned; but the terms adopted are permanently crystallized in dogmatic sig nificance by the end in view and by the context in which they are imbedded.2 In brief, the dogmatic method of the Church is posi- define her original doctrine, contained in Scripture, see Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 59-74; Gore, Roman Catk. Claims, chh. iii., iv., passim. 1 Vincent of Lerins shows how this method was pursued by the third Ecumenical Council. Comm. xxxi. 2 St. Augustine, De Trin., VII. 9, shows that the use of extra- scriptural terms was due to the necessity of excluding heretical interpretations of Scripture. Cf. Beveridge, Works, Vol. I. pp. 118- 120. Strong, Authority, pp. 97-106, 109-1 11; Illingworth, Divine Immanence, p. 181 ; Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 443-447. In his sermon, The Inspiration of Selection, pp. 14, 15, Liddon shows that the Church was guided by the Spirit to select philosophical terms, and consecrate them to be the vehicles of scriptural doctrine. Cf. above, p. 108, and note 1 in loc. HOW EXERCISED 115 tive, definitive, defensive, and exclusive. Comparison and synthesis are employed to determine what has been handed down in all the Churches; and the identity of cathoUc tradition with the real teaching of Scripture is taken for granted. § 6. The range of cathoUc dogmas, as we have said above, is somewhat Hmited.1 They do not define aU the truths which have been revealed ; and there are other contents of the faith of the Church which are vital and necessary to be beheved. The distinction between imphcit and explicit faith is involved here. By imphcit faith we accept whatever is revealed by God and held by the CathoHc Church, whether em bodied in dogmatic phrases or not. By expHcit faith we receive whatever definitions of her faith the Church may impose, interpreting them in accordance with their original meaning.2 It is neither necessary nor possible that individual believers should define scientifically or exactly for themselves aU the contents of the cathohc faith. But it is possible for all to accept that faith with practical security and sufficient understanding; that is, if they accept the Church's dogmas, submit in good faith to her mind and guidance, and practise her sacramental 1 Only the catholic creeds and the decrees of faith of the Ecu menical Councils can, strictly speaking, come under this category. Cf. p. 108, and ch. v. § 6. 2 On explicit and implicit faith, see Forbes, Nicene Creed, p. 17; Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § i. 3, pp. 143-145. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, p. 135, note; and St. Thomas, Summa Theol, II. II. ii. 5.6- 116 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE ways wherein her mind is implied and appUed to the spiritual life.1 The Church's dogmas are concerned with central truths, in which all the rest of saving doctrine is in volved. The guidance of the Holy Spirit enables the Church to distinguish between errors that threaten permanent subversion of the faith and those that are less grave and less enduring among docile believers in her doctrine. Even human wisdom and human analogies show that successful teachers do not make use of a multitude of definitions, but content them selves with defining central truths and principles. Such was our Lord's method. He laid down certain leading principles with great clearness, and His Holy Spirit guided the apostles in due season to understand and explain unmistakably the chief bearings of His self-manifestation, death, and resurrection. AU else was left to the Spirit-guided intelligence of those who should befieve on His name, and submit to the dis- cipfine of His Church.2 An analysis of the Church's creeds and other dog matic definitions shows that they are limited in content to three classes of truths: (a) the doctrine of the Trinity, embodied in affirmations concerning the three divine Persons; (6) primary facts of the Gospel, by which our practical relations to God are determined; (c) the truths which determine the manner of our spiritual Hfe, or the regimen of the CathoUc Church, 1 Cf. above, ch. iii. J 15 (h); and below, § 7 of this chapter. 2 See Cotterill, Genesis of the Church, Pt. II. ch. i. HOW EXERCISED 117 and man's final destiny.1 It ought to be clear that one whose faith is sound on such points, and whose Ufe is guided by such truths, is not likely to go astray to any fatal extent. FuUer definitions might save some from toil and doubt, perhaps; but such difficulties are inherent in genuine probation, and are conducive to our appreciation of truth. Moreover, additional defi nitions would be more likely to chaUenge the opposi tion of the unspiritual than add security to those who accept existing dogmas loyaUy. Schism is indeed a most grievous evil. But the fact is undeniable that God is able to overrule this evU and convert it into an instrument for good. We may be- Heve, and be thankful, that He has made use of schisms to prevent the Church from imposing more dogmas than are really necessary for the protection of the faithful. The Church's long struggle with heresy had engendered a tendency to define with greater ful ness and subtlety than the Church's total experience justifies. Whatever happens within the Church, it is the Spirit that guides the Church as a whole, and makes all things work out for her ultimate good. § 7. The Church may cease for many long ages to exercise her dogmatic office, so far as it concerns the imposition of new definitions of her faith. But this office continues to be exercised uninterruptedly, none 1 On the limited contents of the creeds and ecumenical dogmas, see McLaren, Cath. Dogma, pp. 48-51; Illingworth, Reason and Revel, pp. 182-184. Tertullian rebukes curiosity touching matters not de fide, in De Praise. Haer., ch. xiv. 118 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE the less, by the permanent maintenance and enforce ment of existing dogmas, and by their continued em bodiment in canon-law and in ecclesiastical discipHne and usages. To use modern parlance, the Church never ceases to possess and utter a " Uving voice." J This voice is her own, for its language is undeniably prescribed by her. It is also a Uving voice, because uttered in obedience to a discipline that is adjusted from time to time to the conditions and circumstances of each succeeding age and each several part of the Catholic Church. Constant readiness to set forth new and formal defi nitions of the truths contained in the faith may prove to be a symptom of restlessness and lack of confidence in the grace of God, rather than a sign of vigorous Ufe and pedagogic wisdom. III. Tradition § 8. The dogmatic office of the Church requires, as we have seen, a careful transmission of the faith, in its purity and integrity, to subsequent generations. The term "tradition" is here used for this process of transmission in all its varied Hnes and forms.2 1 The subject of the Church's living voice is considered below, in chapter viii. § 4. 2 On tradition see Palmer, The Church, Pt. III. ch. iii.; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 158-166; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. Pt. I. chh. ii., iv.; Ottley, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 28-41; Collins, ibid., pp. 55-67; Lacey, Elem. of Christian Doc., pp. n-13, 21; Baring-Gould, Our Inheritance, ch. xxxiii. pp. 342-345; Pearson, Condones ad Clerum, L; Pusey, Eirenicon, Vol. I., pp. 82 et seq. TRADITION 119 § 9. These Unes and forms are manifold. (a) The first and richest in subject-matter is the scriptural; for it may not be denied that the Scriptures The New Testament is clear in regard to the function and duty of the Church to transmit that, and that only, which has been revealed. The Spirit's guidance is to bring such things to remembrance, St. John xiv. 26; Christ's ministers are stewards, not creators of divine mysteries, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2; xv. 3; Christians are to hold fast the tra ditions, 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 6; the Church is the pillar and ground, not the inventor, 1 Tim. iii. 15; what is committed to our trust must be kept, 1 Tim. vi. 20; even in the form of sound words, 2 Tim. i. 13, 14; iii. 14; what had been seen and heard was taught by the apostles, Heb. ii. 3; 1 St. John i. 1-3; those who lack this doctrine are to be shunned, 2 St. John 10; the faith once for all delivered is to be contended for, St. Jude 3. On the other hand, the accretion of man- made traditions is possible, and such traditions are condemned. Cf. St. Matt. xii. 1-8; xv. 2-20; St. Mark vii. 3-9; St. Luke vi. 1-11; Col. ii. 8; 1 Tim. 1, 4; iv. 7; 1 St. Pet. i. 18. The patristic recognition of the importance and authority of tra dition is emphatic. Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Cor., xxx. 1, condemns innovators upon tradition. Cf. chh. vii. 2; xiii. The Didache, ch. iv., urges to "keep what thou hast received, neither adding to it nor tak ing from it." Teachers who do otherwise are not to be received, ch. xi. Ignatius, ad Magnes., ch. 13, makes "the ordinances of the Lord and of the apostles " paramount. Irenaeus identifies heresies by their modemness, Adv. Heer., III. iv. 3; and contrasts their waywardness to the sure and consentient traditions of the Church, V. xx. 1. Ter tullian appeals to the same criterion of modemness, De Prase. Haer., 29-31; 34, 35; Adv. Prax., 2; Adv. Marc., v. 19; for Christ revealed truth to the apostles to be handed on by tradition, De Prase. Haer., 20. Clement of Alexandria shows that ecclesiastical tradition is prior to that of heretics, Strom., vii. 17; and treats those who spurn it as unfaithful, vii. 16. Origen says ecclesiastical teaching transmitted from the apostles is alone to be accepted, De Prin., Pref. 2. Cyprian describes Christ, the final court of appeal, as the fount of tradition, Epis. Ixxiii. ro; Cf. Ixxiv. 19. The sentiment of the Nicene fathers is expressed by Athanasius, c. Arian. I. iii., when he says that novel- 120 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE constitute an ecclesiastical means of tradition.1 The writers of Holy Scripture, especially of the New Testa ment, wrote from a strictly ecclesiastical point of view; and, although the exigencies which occasioned their writing were widely diverse, what had been received from God by the existing Church of God was embodied in what they wrote, and remains there for the benefit of aU later generations. Nor is this all. The Church herself gradually took over these Scriptures, incor porated them into a Sacred Canon, and has preserved them, with the continual acknowledgment that they ties, not derived from the fathers, are by that fact proved to be heresy. It is unnecessary to give further citations. A patristic catena is to be found in Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. I. pp. 394-458. The position of the ancients is registered in Canon XIX. of the Council in Trullo, 690 a.d., which forbids teachers to vary in their expositions from "the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any con troversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the Church in their writings have expounded it . . . For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers the people . . . will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance," etc. The Vincentian rule of faith, in its article of antiquity, brings into line all who accept that rule: see Comm., ii., iv.-vi., viii.-x., xxxi.-xxxiii. — that is, antiquity of doctrine transmitted by the Church. An Anglican catena is given in Tracts for the Times, 78. The emphasis on non-scriptural tradi tion in the Roman Church cannot, of course, reduce the significance of the teaching of the Vatican Council, Conslit. I. cap. iv., that "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the rev elation or deposit of faith delivered through the apostles." 1 The custom of viewing Scripture in antithesis to other means of tradition, and of narrowing the proper significance of the word "tradition" by using it with exclusive reference to the latter, was TRADITION 121 contain her ancient faith. Thus it is through the Church that we receive the Scriptures. And among the. reasons which the Church gives for transmitting them to us is this, that by searching them we can com pare her later teaching with her primitive faith. The fact that these Scriptures are divinely inspired, does not interfere in the least with their value as means of ecclesiastical tradition, but rather adds to that value. It assures us that the ecclesiastical teaching which they contain is not only primitive but divine in source. § 10. The term tradition is usuaUy employed more narrowly, with reference to other Unes of ecclesiastical transmission. (6) Most commonly the word is appUed to oral transmission from one generation of believers to another, such as is necessarily involved in the spiritual conversa tions of the faithful, in the oral training of the young, and especiaUy in the pubUc and catechetical teaching of ecclesiastical ministers. Each new generation neces sarily overhears the conversation, and imbibes more or less of the ideas, of the preceding one; and the generally crystallized in the decrees of Trent, Sess. IV., in which revealed truth is said to be "contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions"; and has been perpetuated by post-reformation contro versy. The result has been to separate unduly the conceptions of ecclesiastical and biblical authority, this in turn causing an emphasis on one at the expense of the other, and a consequent weakening of men's hold on both. The fact is that the two authorities discharge the common function of tradition. And we have chosen to emphasize this by our terminology, in order to do justice to the close inter connection and mutually corroborative value of ecclesiastical and biblical authority. 122 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE recognized obligation among Christians of preserving the faith without change in its substance would, for a long time at least, have prevented any general departure from the original faith of the Church, even if there had been no other safeguard.1 At an early date the rise of heresy led to special care in this matter. Local traditions were compared with each other, and it was acknowledged that the bishops were primarily responsible for maintaining the purity of tradition in each locahty and for making known its contents to inquirers. Before long it came also to be recognized that the great centres of Church life en joyed pecuHar security in the matter of tradition. The faithful were apt to congregate to such places from aU quarters, bringing with them their local traditions. This had the effect inevitably of giving to the tra ditions of metropolitan sees a certain representative 1 As is well known, the ancients excelled moderns in their capacity to remember and preserve oral traditions, because they were more de pendent than we are upon such means of information, and were not distracted by the modern multiplicity of interests and variety of reading. The working of oral tradition in the ancient Church is well illus trated by a well-known passage cited by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., V. 20, from a letter of Irenaeus to Florinus, written towards the end of the second century. Irenaeus says that he remembers vividly the teaching which he received in boyhood from Polycarp, including that holy man's description of his intercourse with St. John and of the accounts which the beloved disciple was wont to give of our Lord's miracles and teaching. Thus an oral tradition through but two inter mediaries is crystallized in a letter written at least 150 years after the origin of that tradition, and is thus preserved for future generations. See Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. Pt. I. ch. iv. § 21. TRADITION 123 value. Rome, in particular, was the capital of the whole Roman empire, and the saying that "all roads lead to Rome" suggests the fact that people from every part of the world were to be met there — Christians among them, both clerical and lay. Under these cir cumstances Roman traditions acquired a pre-eminently cosmopofitan and catholic value, which made the Bishop of Rome, in practice, the most important and influential guardian of ecclesiastical tradition. The habit of deferring to his judgment in matters of doc trine, grew naturally out of these conditions.1 § 11. (c) The guidance which the Holy Spirit gives to the Church does not altogether remove the limita tions which attend oral traditions, even under the most favourable circumstances.2 Inevitably, as time elapsed, other means of preserving the original faith 1 The classic patristic passages on this point are Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii. 3; Tertullian, De Prase. Haer., 21, 32, 36. In ch. 28 Tertul lian points out the unlikelihood that many Churches would concur in error. Irenaeus remarks that "it would be tedious to enumerate the succession [in the tradition of doctrine] of all the Churches." Simply to avoid such toil he chooses the Church of Rome, "for to this Church, on account of her superior pre-eminence, it must needs be that every Church should come together, that is, the faithful from all sides; and in this Church the tradition from the apostles has always been preserved by men from all parts." The translation given is' Gore's, in Roman Cath. Claims, pp. 96, 97. See Puller, Prim. Saints, pp. 19-35; Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 381-383; Bright, Roman See in the Early Church, pp. 20-36; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. Pt. I. ch. iv. § 22. 3, 4; Dom Chapman, Bp. Gore and the Cath. Claims, pp. 63-65. 2 See Hooker, Eccles. Polity, I. xiii. 2; Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § 2, 3 init. 124 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE were depended upon more and more. The essential contents of oral tradition were summarized in creeds and other ecclesiastical formularies; and, when these began to assume documentary and permanent shape, they also began to overshadow oral tradition in the settlement of doctrinal controversies. Oral tradition has never ceased to have a real, although subordinate, value. But the fact that what we call the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds contained admittedly the primary elements of the traditional faith, and the circumstance that their form now became crystaUized in many manuscripts, naturally led to their being treated more and more as the primary and formal instruments of cathoUc tra dition.1 These creeds were not merely registers of the state of oral tradition in the fourth century. They were also survivals of a "form of sound words" which had come down in aU probability from the apostles them selves. The purely verbal nature of their differences points to a common source, the doctrine of the apostles.2 § 12. {d) Oral traditions gained a less formal but very real protection through patristic Hterature in general, the amount of which increased with every generation. The writings of the earlier fathers were to a con siderable extent embodiments of these traditions; and, Uke the creeds, tended to crystaUize them, and by their wide circulation and influence prevented substantial 1 Moberly, in Lux Mundi, pp. 239-245, shows that conciliar definitions represent no change of doctrine, but a growth in intellectual precision through experience with error. See Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. § 24. Cf. § 22, ibid. 2 Cf . § 2, above. TRADITION 125 variations between different portions of the Church. This steadying influence was exercised to a special degree, of course, by the works of the more eminent theologians. Patristic Hterature has Hved on, and con stitutes a valuable means for checking the contents of tradition in later ages. Many pious opinions which have apostoHc tradition alleged for their support are shown by patristic studies to be of later origin. And it is partly by such studies that we are able to estabhsh the antiquity of the fundamental doctrines of present- day ecclesiastical teaching.1 The authority of an individual patristic writer, how ever, derives its weight from our knowledge that he truly represents the mind of the- Church in his day. Some of the fathers are known to have been indi- viduaHstic in certain directions. For example, it is known that so great a writer as St. Augustine ex pressed views on the subject of predestination which were not representative of traditional doctrine. So far as such Umitations appear, we have to allow for them. It is to the consent of ancient writers that we look for the contents of the teaching handed down from the beginning.2 » Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. iii. § 14; x. §§ 3, 4. St. Atha nasius says that it is enough to answer heresies "as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this." Vincent of Lerins, Comm., ch. 28, is very satisfactory. See Waterland, Importance of the Doc. of the Trinity, ch. vii.; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. pp. 75, 76. 2 Vincent of Lerins, Comm., chh. 10, 11, 17-19, points out the possi bility that great writers may err, noticing especially the examples of 126 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE § 13. (e) The line of tradition which is apt to be insufficiently emphasized, although its importance is very great, is that of the permanent institutions and usages of the Church.1 Thus the observance of the Lord's day is practically coeval with the Christian dispensation, and is an abiding witness that the doc trine of our Lord's resurrection was contained in the original deposit of faith.2 The more ancient features of the Christian year have sinfilar value for tradition. But the sacramental rites, dating as they do from New Testament times, and preserving in aU parts of the world real unity of meaning in the midst of minor variations, and in spite of persecution and schism, are perhaps the most sure objective media of tradition. The baptismal formula has preserved the original doc- Origen and Tertullian. The remedy (ch. 28) is to follow consent. Petavius disparaged unduly, and Bishop Bull exaggerated, the theo logical orthodoxy of ante-Nicene writers. Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § 4, estimates their value with better success. Jeremy Taylor em phasizes the limitations of the value of appeal to the fathers in Liberty of Prophesying, § 8. Cf. Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 55-57. 1 Ottley, Incarnation, vol. I. pp. 148-150, says that tradition, the greater Sacraments, with holy seasons and the Lord's day, "constitute the basis and safeguard of Christian belief." Cf. Strong, Authority, ch. vii.; Hastings, Die. of Christ, s.v. "Calendar, the Christian"; Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, chh. vi., vii. The possibility of mis use of custom is referred to by a remark of St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixxiii. 9, "Custom without truth is the antiquity of error." 2 The Lord's Day was not a modification of the Jewish Sabbath, but a distinctly Christian institution, which did not immediately displace the Sabbath. Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10. Cf. St. Matt, xxviii. 1; St. Mark xvi. 9; St. John xx. 19, 26. See Hessey, Sunday; Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, pp. 304-326; Gamble, Sunday and the Sabbath (Golden Lees, of 1900-1901). TRADITION 127 trine of the Trinity. The rite of Confirmation has transmitted to us the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His economy of grace. Holy Orders teaches us of our Lord's commission and its unbroken transmis sion to our own time. Penance, Holy Matrimony, and Unction (the last unhappily neglected in the Anglican Churches) preserve, each in its own way, distinct aspects of the grace of Christ. The Holy Eucharist, and the liturgies which are employed in its celebration, overshadow all these in their importance as means of tradition.1 The funda mental outline and meaning of catholic liturgies has from the beginning been the same in every nation where the historic faith has been received. To-day Greek, Latin, and Anglican perform the same service, and exhibit in so doing the same catholic faith, in its ancient content and glory. Variations of phraseology and tongue have been many, and ruptures of inter communion have been bitter and age-long, but no where in the world can one join in eucharistic worship without taking part in the exhibition of a common cathoUc faith, hardly one important element of which is wholly left out of its abiding testimony. There have been many heretical preachers in the Church, no doubt : but so long as these preachers duly celebrate the august mystery of the Christian Sacrifice, they contradict by the rite which they perform the heresies which they proclaim.2 1 Maclear's Evidential value of the Eucharist is based upon this. 2 Lex orandi, lex credendi. 128 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE § 14. A consideration of these manifold ways in which the Church of God has handed down her faith, and of the various methods of study by which we are enabled to verify the sameness of what she now teaches with what she received in the beginning, ought to afford much encouragement. It shows that the Holy Ghost has made use of human safeguards in guiding the Church into the truth. The laws and limitations of human tradition have not been ignored, but have been employed and overruled with a providential wisdom that is open to human observation, and which, there fore, is calculated to assure us that the results of the process can be trusted. The fact remains that the Church has been supernaturally guided ; and the mar vellous unity of fundamental faith stiU existing in the Catholic Church of every nation is the result of super natural as well as of human causes.1 § 15. Our treatment of tradition would be incom plete if we neglected to notice that repeated purging out of accretions attends and guarantees the success of the Church's efforts to hand on her faith without alter ing its original content. 1 Sabatier, Religions of Authority, ch. iii., employs the naturalness of tradition to disprove its supernatural overruling, as if the two could not cohere in working. Objections to dependence upon tradition are usually based on its supposed insecurity. The only tradition for which we contend is as secure as the evidence that we possess the Word of God in the Sacred Canon. So Waterland, Works, Vol. I. p. 514; and even Sabatier says, op. cit., p. 154, "Without tradition the Scriptures are without external support, and cannot become a dogma; they remain simply historic docu ments," etc. TRADITION 129 Novel phraseology is continually being used in theo logical expositions of doctrine, and successive schools of thought give disproportionate emphasis to limited portions of the faith, thereby obscuring other traditional elements of it. Sometimes grave departures result, and accretions continuaUy appear. New usages be come ancient, and bring doctrinal impHcations with them which tend to enlarge the substantial area of doctrinal traditions or modify their contents. But these subtractions and accretions alike have to stand the test of time and repeated verification through the study and comparison of accredited lines of tradition — study which is undertaken afresh with every revival of theological learning.1 The result is inevitable, and made secure by the Spirit who perpetuaUy illuminates the Church's mind. Scripture, consent, creeds, ancient Uterature, permanent institutions and the Hturgy com bine to make the ancient faith recognizable, and have the effect of nuUifying spurious traditions and teach ings. No age is free from errors of its own, but they 1 Critical scholarship is apt to be viewed only in antithesis to the obedience of faith, or loyalty to what has been handed down from the beginning. The fact is that sound criticism becomes, in the long run, one of the instruments by which the Holy Spirit protects the Church from departing from her ancient doctrine. And no criticism can hold its own permanently, unless it is sound. At all events, the Spirit's guidance is not disparaged because we obey the teaching of the Spirit to "test all things," and "hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. v. 21. We are apt to limit unduly the methods and resources of the Spirit in guiding the Church. He can make all things work together for the fulfilment of Christ's promise to the Church. Cf. Rom. viii. 27-28. 10 130 THE DOGMATIC OFFICE all pass away in time through their inability to stand the test of the rule of faith. Nothing which lacks scriptural authority, universahty, antiquity, and con sent can hold its own within the Church universal, as necessary to be believed for salvation; and no doctrine which stands this test can fail to be reasserted after passing neglect.1 >Thus the very truth we are defending, of the supernatural authority of the universal Church, came to its own among Anglicans, after long obscuration, in the nineteenth century. The work of the Ecumenical Councils was to purge the catholic tradition of doctrine from heretical novelties. CHAPTER V COUNCILS AND POPES I. General Councils § i. In the last chapter we saw that the dogmatic office of the Church is normaUy exercised through her bishops, whose office is of divine appointment,1 and is of a nature that empowers them to speak officiaUy for the Church as no others can speak. But we also saw that bishops are not independent of the Church at large. Their utterances cannot bind the consciences of the faithful when found to be con trary to the corporate mind of the catholic body. This chapter wiU be devoted to the manner in which the bishops speak for the Church: whether by (a) General Councils;2 {b) Provincial Synods; or (c) the Papal See. 1 Ch. iv. § 4, above. 2 On General and Ecumenical Councils and their authority, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. chh. vii.-x.; Field, The Church, Bk. V. chh. xlviii.-liii.; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 355-362; Smith and Cheetham, Die. of Christian Antiq. s. v. "Council"; Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, Lee. IV.; Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority, ch. iv.; Ottley, Incarnation, Vol. I. App., note B. Water- worth, Faith of Catholics, vol. I. pp. 460-477, gives a patristic catena. We treat the Councils here in their function of defining the Church's mind. It is presupposed that their definitions must agree with Scrip ture, as must also the Church's mind itself. See above, ch. iii. § 2. 131 132 COUNCILS AND POPES § 2. General Councils constitute important ma chinery which the episcopate has employed in certain extraordinary emergencies, in order to set forth ecumeni cal definitions of the Church's traditional teaching on points obscured or denied by heretics. As extraor dinary bodies the authority of these Councils depends upon their success in defining the Church's real mind, and upon their acceptance by the Church at large. The fact of their meeting creates a presumption that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decisions; which may not be rejected by mere private judgment, or until it becomes clear that the Church herself does not accept them. § 3. But General Councils are not infallible in them selves. The infaUibility of the Church resides in the whole catholic body; and no assembly of men what ever may impose its decisions upon the faithful inde pendently of their subsequent acceptance by the Church. As a matter of fact, General Councils have sometimes failed to achieve the end for which they were summoned, and have committed themselves to heresy.1 Their 1 That of Ariminum, A.D. 359, committed itself in effect to Arian- ism; and that of Ephesus, A.D. 449, called the Latrocinium, ap proved of the Eutychian heresy. These were General Councils, and practically all parts of the Church were represented at them. It may be replied that they were not truly free. The reply is that it is not always possible to distinguish between a Council that is truly free and one that is not. These Councils were General pro forma, and the only authoritative justification for rejecting them is their rejection by the Church. Article XXI. of the XXXIX Articles, which asserts that General Councils have erred, refers perhaps to later Western GENERAL COUNCILS 133 errors have caused them to be rejected by the Church at large. The meeting together of falUble men, how ever formal their gathering may be, does not make them infaUible; although it must be acknowledged that such gatherings are much more likely to avoid heresy than less representative assemblies. The Holy Spirit is present, although not with irresistible grace, and the burden of proof rests always upon those who deny the orthodoxy of the definitions adopted. § 4. The faUibiUty of such bodies can be realized more adequately, perhaps, if we remember that Gen eral CouncUs are extra-constitutional expedients of the moment. We believe that they are also providential means, but they are not of express divine appointment nor essential factors in the Church's normal rule. They represent one among various exceptional means by which the teaching of the several portions of the Church can be compared and digested into common terms.1 In certain emergencies they are no doubt inevitable, since they obviously constitute the best and surest human means of formulating the Church's mind. But if God permits, and history shows that He does permit it, they may fail. The Church's teaching remains, and Synods described as General; but its terms are applicable to every age. The subject is treated of by Forbes and other writers on The Articles, in loc. Cf. Field, The Church, Bk. V. ch. Ii. (who cites writers of all ages); Salmon, Infallibility, Lees. XVI.-XVIL, esp. pp. 281-282. Salmon's position is too negative. 1 Their abnormal nature is seen in the fact that they are usually assembled by " the command and will of princes"; that is, not by the normal action of the Church, as is the case with provincial and diocesan synods meeting regularly. 134' COUNCDLS AND POPES finds expression in various ways; but God permits the formal definition of this teaching in ecumenical phrases to be delayed or even to be defeated.1 A General Council resembles in some respects an international convention, charged with the duty of framing a concordat or treaty which shall define the position to which all the nations participating are will ing to agree. Duly accredited representatives are pres ent, with official powers. Yet the terms which are adopted in such conventions must be ratified by the nations severally before the international authority of the convention, or of its decisions, is established. Such is the case with General Councils; and their decisions are subject to ratification or rejection by the Churches concerned.2 These remarks should make clear the distinction between a General and an Ecumenical CouncU. A General Council is one in which the Church militant as a whole is represented externally and pro forma.3 1 Thus the Councils of Lyons and Florence were not per mitted to settle the filioque controversy, although both the East and the West were represented in fact, whatever may have been the status of the Easterns who were present. That the Church is not prevented from teaching her faith by the failure of Councils, see Laud, Conf. with Fisher, xxxix., p. 428 (Ang. Cath. Lib.). 2 Cf . Collins, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series,, pp. 183-186; Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 151 et seq.; Lias, Nicene Creed, pp. 154-156; George Moberly, Admin, of the Holy Spirit, pp. 1 21-124, on the necessity of ratification. Palmer cites Gallican writers. 3 It is not necessary that every local jurisdiction shall be represented separately, but they must be represented in effect. GENERAL COUNCILS 135 An Ecumenical Council is one, whether General or otherwise,1 which has been received by the whole Church rmlitant as rightly defining the Church's teach ing.2 An Ecumenical Council is said to be infallible; but such language should not be too strictly inter preted. The meaning is that the acceptance of the Council by the Church proves that it has not in fact erred.3 Moreover, even this ex post facto infallibility is not attributed to Ecumenical Councils, except in relation to the doctrinal decisions by reason of which they are caUed ecumenical.4 § 5. No insuperable difficulty should be felt because of the fact that the question of the ecumenicity of a CouncU may remain Unsettled for a time.5 No Council can take the place of the teaching Church, and the Church's mind continues to be expressed in her exist ing traditions, formularies, and sacramental life, even in the most trying times. Ecumenical decrees of faith 1 That of Constantinople, in 381 a.d., was wholly Eastern in its membership. 2 On the distinction between General and Ecumenical Councils, see Darwell Stone, Christian Church, p. 355; Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 150-152; Cheetham, in Die. of Christian Antiq., s. v. " (Ecumenical." 3 So Laud, Conf. with Fisher, xxxviii, p. 383 (Ang. Cath. Lib.). 4 See on this point, Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. viii., who gives various references. In ch. iv. he treats of the irrefragible authority of Councils that secure universal acceptance, with citations from patristic and Anglican writers. 6 How long the ecumenicity of a Council may be in doubt cannot be predicted beforehand. There was considerable delay in the case of the first, second, fifth, and seventh. A change. of circum stances, and the clearing up of misapprehensions, may be necessary 136 COUNCILS AND POPES are often very serviceable indeed for the welfare of the Church, but the Church does not derive her mind from them. If God permits the benefits which such decrees would secure to be deferred, He will somehow protect the Church. The Church as a whole continued to beheve and teach in her worship the co-essential God head of Jesus Christ, during the darkest days of episco pal trifling with Arianism. Athanasius contra mundum never became Athanasius contra ecclesiam, although time-serving prelates proved traitors to the faith.1 Prel ates are not by themselves the Church. The difficulties of such a period of struggle as we have mentioned are incidental to the principle already laid down — that God puts aU men to a probation of faith. He does not cause sudden flashes of dogmatic truth to relieve men in times of confusion from moral effort in truth-seeking.2 It is sufficient that in the Catholic Church He ever rewards a docile obedience of faith with sufficient light for salvation; and brings the Church herself safely through every conflict with heresy. This is the practical meaning of the Church's infaUibility, that she can never cease to be the home of savingtruth and the ark of safetyfor truth-seeking souls. before the value of a Council's decision becomes generally apparent. There is, of course, an element of private judgment in ascertaining what Councils are ecumenical; but not because the individual is competent to determine their merits. The Church does this, and private judgment is here limited to ascertaining what the Church has decided in re. 1 See Newman, Arians, App., note 5; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. § 23. ii. 2 See above, ch. iii. § 15 (h). GENERAL COUNCDLS 137 § 6. Seven Councils have been generally received in the Church, and are to be reckoned as Ecumenical.1 (a) That of Nicea, 325 A.D., asserted our Lord's Godhead against Arianism. (6) That of Constantinople, 381 a.d., asserted the completeness of our Lord's Manhood against Apol- linarianism; and the true Godhead of the Holy Spirit against Macedonianism. (c) That of Ephesus, 431 a.d., asserted the unity of our Lord's Person, and that the Blessed Virgin is rightly caUed &otokos, against Nestorianism. {d) That of Chalcedon, 451 A.D., asserted the distinct ness of our Lord's two natures, against Eutychianism. (e) The second of Constantinople, 553 A.D., con demned the so-caUed "Three Chapters" because of their Nestorian teaching. 1 Their proceedings are given in Hardouin, Acta Conciliorum; Percival, Seven Ecumenical Councils; Hefele, History of the Coun cils. Landon's Manual of the Councils, gives convenient sum maries. These writers deal also with Provincial Councils. Roman authorities accept 21 Councils, adding to our list: (8) Constantinople, 869; (9-12) Lateran, 1123, 1139, 1179, and 1215 A.D.; (13-14) Lyons, 1245 and 1274 a.d.; (15) Vienne, 1311 A.D.; (16) Constance, 1414-1418 A.D. (in part); (17) Basle, 1431 A.D. (in part); (18) Florence, 1438-1442 a.d.; (19) 5th Lateran, 1512-1517 A.D.; (20) Trent, 1545-1563 A.D.; (21) Vatican, 1869-1870 A.D. See Addis and Arnold, Cath. Die. The first four covered impliedly the whole field of doctrine deter mined by the seven, and are often appealed to exclusively. Thus the statute of Elizabeth of 1558, cap. i. § 36, makes their decisions a rule for detecting heresy. The Homily on the Peril of Idolatry recognizes the first six, and is followed by many Anglican writers. So Palmer, Vol. II. pp. 171-172, who gives other references. Field, The Church, Vol. IV. p. 61, evidently dislikes the seventh; but says, 138 COUNCILS AND POPES (/) The third of Constantinople, 680 a.d., asserted the twofold will and operation of our Lord, against MonotheHtism. {g) The second of Nicea, 787 A.D., defined the right use of images in worship, and the purely relative honour due to them in that connection.1 These Councils not only set forth the Nicene Creed, and framed decrees of faith, but also approved and gave ecumenical authority to the Second and Third Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, and the Tome of Pope Leo to Flavian. II. Provincial Councils and Formularies § 7. Provincial Councils 2 are, as their name indi cates, representative of limited parts of the Church, "So that there are but seven General Councils that the whole Church acknowledgeth, called to determine matters of faith and manners." Cheetham, in Die. of Christian Antiq., s. v. " (Ecumenical," says seven are recognized. So Percival, Seven Ecum. CouncUs, pp. xv., 523-528; and Stone, Outlines of Dogma, note 40. An excellent dis cussion of the seventh, with reasons for believing in its ecumenicity, is given in Church Quarterly Review, July, 1896, Art. XI. 1 The acceptance of this Council was delayed in the West, the Council of Frankfort rejecting it, apparently because of imperfect translations of its decrees. But during the Middle Ages it gained acceptance everywhere, including England, nor have the Anglican Churches taken any negative action since. Cf. previous note. The worship of images that it sanctioned, irpoo-Kiv7]o-is, is not adoration, but a purely relative honour, not differing in essential significance from that which is paid everywhere to pictures of eminent and holy men. 2 On the procedure and authority of Provincial and local Councils, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. xiii. § 1; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 337-344. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vii. §§ 1, 2. PROVINICAL COUNCILS AND FORMULARIES 139 and are of two sorts — ordinary and extraordinary. The ordinary ones are concerned with the normal government of the local Churches represented, and need no special ratification, so long as the arrange ments continue in effect that cause their periodical occurrence.1 Extraordinary Councils are gathered to- deal with special exigencies of common concern, and are often representative of larger portions of the Church than ordinary Councils. Such Councils depend for their subsequent authority upon the ratification, whether formal or implicit, of the local Churches represented. An example of such a Council is that of Antioch, about 270 a.d., which deposed Paul of Samosata for heresy.2 What has been said as to the presumptive authority of General Councils, and as to the non-competence of private judgment to reject them, holds good in relation to Provincial Councils, with a difference. Unless a Provincial Council is made Ecumenical through its 1 The inferior clergy and even the laity often participate; as in the General Convention of the American Church to-day, and as is desired to bring about by reformation of the English Convocation. But there is no catholic precedent for the framing of authoritative definitions of doctrine by such participants. The confirmatory power of the laity in an "Established" Church is obvious. See Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 347-354. The relation of the laity to General Councils is exhibited in Pusey on The Councils, passim. 2 See Seeberg, Hist, of Doctrines, Vol. I. pp. 164-166; Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Bk. I. § 9; Pullan, The Church of the Fathers, pp. 151-152. 140 COUNCILS AND POPES ratification by the Church at large,1 its formal authority in doctrine is confined to the local Churches actually represented.2 It should be added that no provincial de cision can continue to bind the consciences of Christian believers anywhere when it is shown to be in real con flict with ecumenical dogma or with the known mind of the CathoHc Church. Subject to these limitations, the authority of duly constituted ecclesiastical Coun cils is paramount within the local Churches repre sented. § 8. Certain Provincial Councils, without being made Ecumenical, have been widely approved by theologians as expressing correctly the mind of the whole Church.3 {a) The Council of Carthage, 397 A.D., adopted a fist of the Canonical Scriptures which has received universal consent in the Church since that time.4 (6) The Council of Orange, 529 a.d., adopted defi nitions on the subjects brought into controversy by the 1 As was the Council of Constantinople — Second Ecumenical — 381 A.D. 2 The case is slightly different in matters of discipline. Local acts of discipline may indeed be appealed from to higher ecclesiastical authority; but, until lawfully reversed, they may not be overridden through interference by other parts of the Church. See Aposl. Canons. xii. and xiii.; Sardican Canons, xiii. On appeals of the clergy see Chalcedon, Can. ix.; and African Code of 419 a.d., xxviii., cxxv. 3 For a bibliography of the proceedings of these Councils see above, p. 137, note 1. * Its action was confirmed by a later Council of Carthage, 419 a.d.; and by the Quinisext Council of Constantinople, 692 a.d. The Council of Laodicea, about 363 a.d., had accepted all of the present list except the deutero-canonical books and Revelations. For text see Sanday, Inspiration, Lee. I., Note A, pp. 59-61. PROVINCIAL COUNCH.S AND FORMULARIES 141 rise of Pelagianism, which are admitted to express the mind of the whole Church. (c) The Council of Toledo, 589 A.D., is supposed to have inserted the' filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. This action has been concurred in by the entire Western Church, but is dissented from by the East. Its purpose was to vindicate the co-essentiaHty of the Son with the Father as against the Arianism of the Goths.1 {d) The Council of Frankfort, 794 A.D., declared that Christ is from eternity the Son of God by nature, and not by adoption. This expresses universal con sent in the Church. It also rejected the Seventh Ecumenical Council under misapprehension.2 {e) The Council of Lyons, 1274 A.D., at which Greek Bishops met the Westerns, adopted a statement touch ing the filioque, that "the Holy Spirit proceedeth eter- naUy from the Father and the Son, not as if from two principles, but as from one principle, not with two spirations but with one, unica, spiration." The East has not ratified this. (J) The Council of Constance, A.D. 1418, declared that the whole Body and Blood of Christ are truly con tained under the species bread and under the species wine in the Holy Eucharist. This doctrine of con- 1 On the whole subject of the filioque and the action of this Council, see Pusey, On the Clause " And the Son "; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. pp. 296-307; Swete, Hist, of the Doc. of the Proces sion; Stone, Outlines of Dogma, pp. 28-30, 276-278; Percival, Seven Ecum. Councils, pp. 165-169. 2 Cf. p. 138 (g) and note 1, above. 142 COUNCILS AND POPES comitance, as it is called, is undoubtedly ecumenical, but the practice which the Council based upon it, of communicating the laity in one kind, is not accepted outside the papal obedience. It is contrary to the institution of Christ. {g) At the Council of Florence, A.D. 1439, certain Greek prelates concurred with the Westerns in acknowl edging that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, by which it was meant "that the Son as well as the Father is, according to the Greeks, a true Cause, according to the Latins a veritable Principle, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And, since the Father giveth to the Son by His generation all that the Father hath, except His being the Father, the Son hath this eternally from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Son." Such is the teaching of Scripture, but the feelings of the Easterns towards the Papal See led to their repudiation of the Council.1 {h) The Council of Trent is not received outside the papal obedience. But its importance to theologians is very great. Many of its definitions are valuable expressions of catholic consent, and in substantial agreement with Anglican formularies. In particular may be mentioned the definitions touching original sin and justification. On the other hand, this Council adopted certain scholastic opinions, including, for 1 A convenient re'sume of the teaching of the Eastern fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit is given by Darwell Stone, Outlines of Dogma, note 3, pp. 276-278. Cf. Pusey, On the Clause, "And the Son," pp. 108-150; and Church Quarterly Review, Jan. 1877, PP- 4-ai- 465- PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND FORMULARIES 143 example, that of transubstantiation, which do not command ecumenical consent.1 {i) The Eastern Church's formularies were adopted chiefly at the Councils of Jassy, in Moldavia, a.d. 1643, and Bethlehem, A.D. 1672. At the former Council, the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila was adopted in its final shape. At Bethlehem the Orthodox Con fession was approved, as well as the Answers of the Patriarch Jeremiah to the Lutherans, composed in the sixteenth century. Certain acts were adopted and Eighteen Articles against the Calvinists.2 The Synod of St. Petersburg, a.d. 1838, adopted a Russian version of these Articles, reducing to some extent, however, a certain approximation to Roman terminology touching transubstantiation. These formularies have great weight and are primary sources of information to those who seek to ascertain the lines of catholic consent in modern times.3 §9. Provincial formularies are binding upon the faithful in those portions of the Church which adopt 1 The documents recognized by the Roman Church as authorita tive in doctrine and morals are gathered, with- a convenient index, in Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum — a volume of handy size. Ecumenical dogmas are, of course, included; and these constitute our meeting point. A brief survey is also given by Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. § 36. 2 See Robertson, The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem . . . Translated from the Greek. 8 Oriental Councils and their decrees can be found in E. J. Kim- mel's Monumenta Fidei Ecclesia; Orientalis; and Hardouin's Acta ConcUiorum. 144 COUNCILS AND POPES and impose them; but always on the assumption that they do not conflict with the teaching of the universal Church.1 It is the duty of the faithful to take this absence of conflict for granted, until evidence of dis agreement is forthcoming. Theologians alone are com petent to estimate the value of such evidence. So it is that Anglicans are bound to receive Anglican formu laries, as well as those which have been imposed by the entire Church miUtant. The chief distinctive formularies now imposed by the Anglican Churches are the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion,and the Church Catechism. The Articles were framed for the use of the clergy.2 But Uke all ecclesiastical formularies they are binding upon the laity to this extent, that no member of the faithful may repudiate the doctrinal teaching of his own portion of the Church, so long as it is not proved to be in conflict with ecumenical doctrine, or outside the range of the Church's teaching office. Certain considerations need to be borne in mind, however, in accepting these Articles. In the first place, they were ostensibly framed as Articles of peace rather than as a Confession of Faith; and this determines the meaning of clerical subscription to them.8 The refor mation epoch was one full of peril to the EngHsh Church. 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vii. § 2; and this volume, p. 140. 2 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vii. §§ 3, 4, on their force and meaning. 3 Such subscription is not required in the American Church, but their ecclesiastical authority is not based upon such subscription. PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND FORMULARIES 145 The reaction from papal tyranny and corruption was attended by much blind exasperation, and many were drifting away from the historic faith and order of the Church. Crude ideas were being put forward, and speculative questions, which in the nature of things could not be settled by precise definitions, were divid ing the faithful into antagonistic parties, and threaten ing the utter destruction of the English Church. The chief thing which seemed to be immediately necessary was a cessation of needless controversy, and the asser tion of those principles only which would carry the Church through the troublous times in which she was involved. Thus it was that the framers of the Articles of Religion, especiaUy those who were responsible for their final shape,1 refrained from precise definitions, except in those principles which were vital to the con tinuance of the ancient religion of the realm. The result is that many of the Articles are purposely vague and general, calculated to shelve controversy, rather than to decide the questions with which they deal. It is indisputable that EUzabeth and the leading mem bers of Convocation desired to retain both the Marian Their adoption by this Church as Articles of Religion "established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church ... in Convention, ... on the twelfth day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1801 " (see their title page), is sufficient to give them the status here claimed for them. By reason of recent changes the English clergy "assent," rather than "subscribe," to the Articles. The difference does not affect our argument. 1 Archbishop Parker and his associates, acting in sympathy with the expressed policy of Queen Elizabeth. 146 COUNCILS AND POPES (Roman) and Calvinistic parties. Evidently the prin ciple afterwards enunciated by royal authority in 1628, that the Articles are to be taken in their strict gram matical sense,1 should be viewed as emphasizing the fact that no opinion should be read into the Articles which is not there explicitly and unambiguously set forth. The appHcation of this principle shows indis putably that the Articles are neither Romish, nor Cal vinistic, nor Lutheran in their purport; but constitute an eirenicon for all who are willing to adhere to the ancient cathohc religion and avoid the propagation of disputatious opinions.2 1 Printed in the English Prayer Book with the Articles. It says: "And that no man hereafter shall either print or preach to draw the article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the literal and gram matical sense." Such a declaration was not really needed to estab lish the generally acknowledged principle that legal enactments have no force as such beyond what they can be demonstrated, or are judicially determined, to mean. This is not to resort to legal sophistry, or to reduce the scope of our loyalty to the Church's teaching, as some think. We are, of course, bound to accept the full mind of the Church, but loyalty requires us to ascertain just what is the mind of the Church in any given ecclesiastical utterance. Official documents show traces of the private views of those who framed them. It is our duty to dis cover whether, and how far, such views have been officially imposed; and the data by which this is determined are the words and phrases of the documents, interpreted according to their unambiguous and demonstrable meaning. This is a truism. 2 It is faithfulness to this point of view that accounts for LaUd's comparative indifference to conflicts of opinion, while rigidly enforc ing external conformity. Whether wisely or no, he and his Eliza bethan predecessors regarded enforcement of external conformity PROVINCIAL COUNCILS AND FORMULARIES 147 On the other hand, foundation principles were care- fuUy defined and insisted upon — that is, principles, an observance of which would preserve the faith and order of the Church. The doctrines which had been defined by the Ecumenical Councils were reasserted in terms calculated to exclude more recent and contem porary heresies. What was perhaps even more impor tant in its immediate practical consequences, the rule of faith or formal principle of the AngUcan reformation was carefuUy asserted. The Church was declared to have authority in controversies of faith; l and it was laid down that aU necessary saving truth is contained in Holy Scripture, "so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re quired of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or neces sary to Salvation." 2 The Convocation of 1571, which adopted the Articles in their permanent shape, ordered that nothing should be taught by preachers as neces sary to be beheved, unless it was contained in Holy Scripture and had been drawn from Scripture by ancient writers and fathers.8 The appeal to antiquity is the to the Church's working system as the policy that would in due time remedy the doctrinal dangers of their age. They were not really indifferent to orthodoxy. " Article XX. 2 Article VI. 'The Canon reads, "Imprimis vera videbunt, ne quid unquam doceant pro condone, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum fit doctrinae Veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina catholici patres, et veteres episcopi collegerint." Given in Concilia Magna Brit, et Hibern., Vol. IV. p. 267. 148 COUNCDLS AND POPES characteristic principle of the Anglican Church,1 and determines absolutely the point of view from which doubtful phrases in the Articles are to be regarded.2 As was asserted by Queen Elizabeth in reply to the Papal See, no new rehgion was established in England at the time of the reformation. § 10. The Church Catechism is indisputably bind ing upon all AngUcans, for it is officially defined in its sub-title as "an instruction, to be learned by every person before he be brought to be confirmed by the Bishop." No one is required to subscribe to its con tents in a formal way, it is true.3 But the reason of this is clear. The Church exacts such subscriptions only of those who are capable of measuring the exact value of language. The faith which she requires of the multitude is implicit, to "believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith." This faith must be accepted with out mental reservations, however, and with humble recognition of the teaching office of the Church. The Catechism exhibits some notable omissions. But this is due to the fact that the larger scheme of 1 See below, note at the end of § 2, ch. viii. 2 On the whole subject of the authority of the Articles, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. IV. ch. xiv. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vii. §§3, 4. The position here taken was reasserted after eighteenth century obscuration by Tract XC, and is that of Bishop Forbes and most recent commentators on the Articles. 3 Formal subscription does not create the obligation of conformity to the Church's teaching, as contained in her formularies. Its pur pose is to assure the Church that the subscriber understands, and is ready to fulfil, what is required. It corresponds to the vows made at Baptism and Confirmation. PROVTNCDAL COUNCILS AND FORMULARIES 149 which it was a part was never carried out.1 As it stands, however, it is sufficient, when received with a docile spirit, to draw the learner on to an implicit acceptance of aU cathohc doctrine. §11. Anghcans are bound in two directions. As bap tized members of the CathoUc Church they should accept impUctly the faith of the Church universal. As Angli cans, providential circumstances require them to assume that whatever their own portion of the Church imposes by way of doctrine is cathohc doctrine, until it is clearly demonstrated to be otherwise. This double principle binds the clergy as well as the laity. "The Church hath . . . authority in Controversies of Faith," and the Church exercises its authority over us through the Anglican body. The teaching authority of a provincial Church over its members is indisputable, until the Church in question has forfeited its claim to be a true portion of the Catholic Church; that is, until it has demonstrably forsaken the faith or has lost the apostoHc ministry and sacraments.2 1 It was intended in the time of Edward VI. and Elizabeth to have a more elaborate Catechism for students in the public schools. Such a Catechism was drawn up in Edward's time, ascribed to Bishop Ponet. As this was not considered satisfactory, the Bishops decided in 1561 to have two advanced Catechisms — one for communicants, and another in Latin for schools. Nowell's Catechism, intended for schools, was amended and approved in 1562 by Convocation; but formal sanction was deferred in view of a plan, never carried out, to embody with it in one official volume the Articles of Religion and JewelVs Apology. See Frere, Hist, of the Prayer Book, pp. 601, 602. 2 See Darwell Stone's admirable words on the teaching authority of the Anglican Church, in Outlines of Dogma, pp. 146-148; and Pusey's larger defence, The Church of England a Portion of Christ's . . . Church {Eirenicon, Pt. I.), esp. the earlier parts. 150 COUNCILS AND POPES III. The Papal See § 12. It was pointed out in our discussion of oral tradition,1 that at an early date the doctrinal traditions of the Roman Church acquired a cosmopoUtan and representative importance by reason of the constant influx of clergy and laity from other Churches to the capital of the Roman empire. The effect of this was twofold: to push the Roman See forward into the position of the most important guardian of the traditional faith, and to afford to that See occasion and tempta tion to make excessive claims for itsetf — claims that became greater as the ages rolled on. The success of the Bishops of Rome in increasing their influence throughout the Church, and in making their claims effective in the West, can be accounted for by a combination of circumstances which, although providential, by no means justify the Vatican theory: — that the Bishop of Rome is constituted by divine appointment to be the supreme head of the Church on earth, with authority to determine all controversies of faith and morals : and that he is endowed with in fallibility in his ex cathedra decisions, so that these decisions bind all the faithful ex sese, independently of their ratification by the Church at large.2 We do not deny that the Roman see has been divinely ¦See pp. 122, 123, above. 2 See Session IV. cap. iv. of the Vatican Council, passed July 18, 1870. The pertinent part reads, "Sacro approbante Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse definimus: Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, id est, cum omnium Christianorum THE PAPAL SEE 151 assisted and guided to do great things for the Church : — in particular, to pilot the Western Church through dark ages, and to save it from divisions of interests that, without such piloting, would apparently have been fatal. Moreover, we are quite unprepared to admit that the Roman See has apostatized, or that it has no future work to do in the ecumenical sphere. Believing as we do, that that See has made itself responsible for grave evils, and that its present claims cannot be accepted by us without betrayal of truth, we acknowl edge that it is still achieving great things for God, and that it has a future with which aU who desire our Lord's prayer for unity to be answered must reckon. § 13. Among the human causes of the rise of papal power in the Church are the following : 1 (a) As has already been stated,2 a Church which was located at the centre of travel naturally and inevi tably became the chief emporium of catholic tradition, so that its utterances soon came to have greater weight in the comparison of ecclesiastical traditions than those of any other local Church. That Church was certain Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Eccle- siam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse volint; ideoque ejusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesia?, irreformabiles esse." Given in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, § 1682. 1 See Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 370 et seq., on this subject. 2 See above, pp. 122, 123, 150. 152 COUNCILS AND POPES under orthodox bishops to become the most important and powerful Church in Christendom.1 {b) It was customary in the early Church to honour what were called apostoUc sees — those that had been founded by one or other of the original twelve apostles. And such sees exercised an influence, none the less real because informal in acknowledgment, that was much greater in individual instances than other circumstances warranted. Moreover, the Roman See was the only apostolic See in the West, and on that account wielded greater influence than seemingly it would have exer cised otherwise. (c) Under such circumstances it required no super natural warrant to justify the Council of Sardica in conferring on the Roman Bishop the new prerogative — the language employed shows that it was new — of receiving appeals, and of intervening in the affairs of other Churches to the Hmited extent of securing fresh proceedings in the Church where the case appealed originated.2 It was also natural that certain emperors "Roberston, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, pp. 211-223, discusses this, and shows that the Roman Bishop gained his position by reason of the human importance of his See, and that the Petrine claim was not the original cause. 1 A recent semi- Arian Council at Antioch had, in the interests of semi- Arianism, forbidden appeals beyond the local province. To remedy this the Council of Sardica decreed, with conscious reference to any one thus hindered from maintaining orthodoxy, "Let us, if you please, honour the memory of the apostle Peter, and let him write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, who, if he thinks fit, may order the case to be tried again, and appoint judges to try it." The Council is obviously conferring appellate jurisdiction, and that of limited THE PAPAL SEE 153 should confirm and enlarge the prerogatives of the Roman See — that is, so far as secular authority was able to do this. Whatever may be thought of such secular interference, its effect was momentous.1 It should be added that the Popes of the Nicene age were very able statesmen, and stretched the meaning of the Sardican canon in practice beyond its actual significance. {d) The downfall of the Western Empire left the Bishop of Rome in possession. He became the strong man of the West — the one force that could be counted on to maintain order and civilization, and the inheritor of the traditional reverence which was paid by Roman and barbarian alike to the august name of Rome.2 Meantime the only possible rival — the Bishop of new Rome or Constantinople — was overshadowed in his own neighbourhood by the Eastern Emperor; and that Emperor was too remote from Italy to check the poUtical advance of such a Pope, for example, as Gregory the Great. (e) The Pope under these circumstances became a secular prince, and ruled over considerable territories; and he fortified his position by recognition of, and alliance with, the Franks, who were rapidly becoming the strongest secular force in the West. In due season nature. The Canon is given in Hardouin and other collections, e.g. Percival, pp. 416, 417. For discussions, see Puller, Prim. Saints, pp. 140-144; Bright, Roman See, pp. 85-91. 1 See Legge, The Growth of the Temporal Power of the Papacy, ch. i. The whole work is valuable. 2Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, revised ed., pp. 16-47, passim. 154 COUNCDLS AND POPES this alUance gave birth to the Holy Roman empire, in which the papal claims were supported by the rulers of western Europe, who leaned on the Roman See for a sacred sanction of their empire.1 (/) Such conditions had the effect of subjecting every western interest to the Papal See.2 The vaHdity of its spiritual claims was acknowledged as a matter of course in the unscholarly ages that followed; and the fictions with which these claims came to be fortified were generally accepted.3 Moreover, the nature of the whole situation imparted a consistency to papal pohcy which enabled the Roman See to profit by every political conflict in the Empire, and to become the effective 1 Church's Beginnings of the Middle Ages, Emerton's Introd. to the Study of the Middle Ages, and Bryce's Holy Roman Empire (revised ed.) give, passim, satisfactory accounts of the formation of this alliance. 2 Missionaries derived their prestige, and consequent chances of success among the barbarians, from their having been sent by the ruler of the eternal city. The subsequent subjection of the new Churches to a papal supremacy — not less real because undefined — was inevitable. The missions of Augustine to Britain (followed by the organizing work of Theodore), and of Boniface to Germany, afford notable instances. 3 For instance, the Donation of Constantine, extracts from which are preserved in Gratian, Corpus Juris Can., Dist. xcvi. cc. 13, 14, quoted by Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, pp. 514-515; and the False Decretals. These latter consisted of additions to a genuine collection made by Isidore of Spain. They were forged in Gaul in the interests of inferior sees and against the excessive power of metropolitans. But they proved to be a convenient support for the claims of Nicholas I., who made use of them, innocently no doubt, and without inquiring into their genuineness. See Bryce, op. cit., pp. 156, 196, 197; Blunt, Die. of Theol, s. v. "Decretals, False." THE PAPAL SEE 155 arbiter, not only of spiritual concerns, but between princes and kings as well.1 The result was as inevitable as its historic causes were human. No one was powerful enough or learned enough to gainsay the Pope; and arguments that had never convinced the East came to be accepted without question throughout the West — in particular the appeal to our Lord's aUeged declaration that Peter was the rock on which He would buUd His Church. And the facts require us to acknowledge that, what ever resistance may have been shown at times to papal commands, the English were practically at one with their Western brethren in acknowledging the Petrine claim of Rome during the Middle Ages.2 They never faced the question fuUy, and the extent of papal pre rogative was not clearly defined in their minds. That they considered it to be Hmited is shown by many events,3 but that they considered it to be divinely appointed is as certain as any fact of mediaeval history. * Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) humbled Henry IV. of Germany, at Canosa (1077 a.d.), and Innocent III. (1198-1216 a.d.) raised the political power of his See to its climax. Boniface VIII. (1 294-1303 A.D.) pressed his claims beyond what even that age was ready for, and his defeat initiated a decline of papal power; which, however, revived somewhat in the fifteenth century. 2 Thus at the Conference of Whitby, 664 a.d., the Roman usages were preferred to the Celtic on the plea advanced by Wilfrid, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been given to Peter. Bede, Eccles. Hist., III. 25. 3 For example, the refusal of Theodore to restore Wilfrid at the Pope's bidding, and the statutes against papal abuses in the fourteenth century. 156 COUNCILS AND POPES No one, however, then maintained the modern Vati can position.1 § 14. To deny that the position and power of the Papal See during the Middle Ages was providentiaUy ordered seems exceedingly precarious. Without deny ing the power of God to employ other instruments, we believe the facts plainly show that He did employ the Roman See to save some remnants of ancient civiliza tion, to bring order out of chaos, to unify and make effective the work of evangeHzing the barbarians, and to restrain and Christianize our pagan forefathers; in short, to save the Church in Europe from extinction. All this ought duly to be acknowledged by those who seek to arrive at just conclusions concerning papal claims. The Roman See has been occupied at times by wicked and ambitious men, and several of its occupants have sided with heretical interests. But the record of that See has none the less been a glorious one, and there fore we are not surprised at the continued acknowledg ment of its claims by a large section of the Church, even in their Vatican form. § 15. In undertaking to summarize our reasons for rejecting the claim of the Bishop of Rome to exercise the dogmatic office of the Church, a preliminary con sideration should be emphasized. The point at issue 1 To question papal claims altogether would have required in that age and in the West a mental freedom which the conditions did not afford. Acquiescence, however, was confined to the West — to those who were under the heel, or at least the glamour, of papal power. THE PAPAL SEE iS7 is not one of human arrangement. The Church may, of course, make use of the Pope as her agent in mak ing dogmatic decisions, and may permit him to exercise a real executive headship over her concerns in this world. But she may alter or displace machinery of her own appointment, and she is certainly not debarred from considering and determining by other than papal means whether the decisions of official agents are con sistent with her faith. The issue is reaUy concerned with the assertion that the Roman See exercises the supreme magisterium and the dogmatic office by express divine appointment, so that papal decisions ex cathedra are not subject to reversal or modification even by the universal Church.1 Divine appointment of this kind is not a growth but a fact of history. If it were a growth, no one could say, without express divine revelation, that it might not grow on; and become, for instance, a Umited pri macy, such as could be accepted without inconsistency 1 It is said that what the Vatican decree really means is that, as a final court of appeal, the Papal See in fact registers the mind of the universal Church. When the Pope has spoken ex cathedra the uni versal Church has spoken. Causa finita est. See Carson, Reunion Essays, p. 99, who cites Ryder to the same effect. The answer is clear. The universal Church has never conceded such absolute judicial authority to the Pope. This is a question of fact. It is the Church's duty to maintain the faith, in any event; and she is not at liberty to nullify her freedom to do this by any machinery what ever. She must be free to overrule the judgments of her official agents, or else abandon her claim to supreme "authority in Con troversies of Faith." She cannot delegate this authority absolutely, bo as to be unable to resume it, without unfaithfulness to her divinely appointed stewardship. 158 COUNCILS AND POPES by all portions of the Church.1 In brief, the ques tion is one of fact simply. Did our Lord appoint St. Peter, and his successors in the Roman See, to the position now claimed by the Papal See, and endow them with peculiar infallibility?2 What our mediaeval forefathers thought does not of itself settle the matter. Their view was both provincial and uncritical. Claims could not be discussed fruitfully when excommunication awaited dissentients, and physi cal penalties as well. It is significant, however, that the very first formal consideration of the aUeged divine right of papal supremacy, in the Convocation of 1534, led to its rejection.3 § 16. Limitations of space compel us to give our reasons for rejecting Vatican claims very concisely.4 1 We shall return to the growth theory in § 20 (6) of this chapter. It is not generally maintained by Roman CathoUc writers, but Newman broached it, in Development of Doctrine, ch. iv. § iii., and it has been urged of late by Carson, Reunion Essays, ch. i.; and Loisy, The Gospel and the Church. 2 Bright, See of Rome in the Early Church, pp. 2-8, and Puller, Prim. Saints, revised ed., pp. 1-5, bring this out. 3 It is idle to object that the members of Convocation acted under royal dictation. They had shown their independence and courage by refusing to acknowledge Henry's claim to be "Supreme Head," until that phrase had been qualified in such wise as to pre serve the supremacy of the hierarchy in spirituals. For the fullest account of these matters, see Dixon, Hist, of the Church of England, Vol. I. 4 Fuller discussions are abundant. Among the older standard works may be mentioned Laud, Conference with Fisher; Field, The Church, Bk. V. chh. xxiii., xxiv., xxxii.-xlvii.; Ussher, Answer to a Jesuit's Challenge; Isaac Barrow, The Pope's Supremacy; Craken- thorp, Defensio Ecclesia Anglicana. Later discussions are found in THE PAPAL SEE 159 * (a) In the first place, it is a fatal flaw in these claims that they are not primitive, either in origin or accept ance; and that they have never received the acceptance of the entire Catholic Church. The Eastern Churches have rejected them aU along, and the Anglican Church has never accepted them with deliberate formality in, any shape, or even impliedly in their modern form.1 The plea that Vaticanism is the result of legitimate Palmer, The Church, Pt. VII.; Salmon, Infallibility of the Church; A. Robertson in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, V.; and especially Puller, Primitive Saints, revised ed., and Bright, Roman See. The latest Roman methods of argument may be studied in Rivington, Primitive Church and the See of Peter; Carson, Reunion Essays; Dom. Chapman, Bp. Gore and the Catholic Claims; McNabb, In fallibility. 1 Bright, Roman See, and Puller, Prim. Saints, revised ed., discuss the question of acceptance of papal claims in some detail. Cf. Sal mon, Infallibility, pp. 376 et seq.; Robertson, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, pp. 211 et seq.; Pusey, Eirenicon, Vol. III., pp. 180-327. Rivington, Prim. Church, tries to show that the ancients acknowl edged the Papal See as supreme; and Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. II. pp. 2-112, gives patristic catenas in the same interest. Among those who have accepted the papal rule since the reformation, many have rejected the distinctive elements of the Vatican position; e.g. Bossuet and the Gallicans. Cardinal Veron, Regula Fidei, cap. i. § 4, denies that papal utterances, even ex cathedra, are in themselves sufficient to impose an article of catholic faith. Cf. cap. ii. § 15. He died in 1646. In a pastoral issued by the Roman hierarchy of Ireland, 1826, the words occur, "It is not an article of the Catholic Faith, nor are we thereby required to believe, that the Pope is infallible." Keenan's well-known catechism, prior to its revision after the Vatican Council, declared the doctrine of papal infallibility to be "a protestant invention, and it is no article of the Catholic Faith. No decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received by the teaching body — that is by the Bishops of the Church." 160 COUNCILS AND POPES development1 is nullified by the fact that the papal claim is expressly based on divine appointment — not a subject of growth. Moreover, this development has been confined to a part of the Church, and has been proved not to be catholic by its consistent repudiation in the Churches which have been in a position to con sider the question with real freedom.2 The Vatican decree on infallibility mentions an " infaUibility where with Christ has endowed His Church." That infalU biUty has not permitted the CathoHc Church in its corporate entirety to accept papal claims; nor has she in practice resorted to the Papal See in defining her faith, but has employed the more elaborate and difficult pro cedure of General Councils. Moreover, these Councils have not accepted papal documents without careful examination of them on their merits.3 § 17. (&) The mind of the CathoHc Church is deter mined by traditions which began before the New Testa ment was written, and it may be trusted in relation to facts of such fundamental bearing as are at issue in this controversy. But, none the less, Holy Scripture is the fullest source of information touching our Lord's 1 Cf. above, pp. 157, 158; and below, § 20 (6). 2 The Vatican Council itself was not really free. Papal pressure was too much in evidence, and it is certain that many yielded to it very unwillingly. The state of opinion just previous to the Council is graphically exhibited in Wilfrid Ward's, Wm. Geo. Ward and the Catholic Revival, esp. ch. x. 3 Even the glorious Tome of Leo on the Incarnation was refused ratification at Chalcedon until it had been examined and discussed in detail. See Bright, See of Rome, pp. 185-189; Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, §§190, 192. THE PAPAL SEE 161 appointments. We maintain that papal claims are not borne out by the New Testament.1 The texts chiefly reUed on iUustrate our contention. Thus, it is not certain that Peter is the rock to which our Lord referred in the most notable of these passages; 2 and the ancient writers who so interpreted it did not usually treat it as signifying a permanent headship in the Church, to be transmitted to Peter's successors. The promise of the power of binding and loosing was in the event fulfiUed by its bestowal upon the whole apostolic band.3 Coming to the next passage, if Peter was urged to strengthen the brethren when he had been converted,4 surely no unique prerogative was involved in doing this.5 FinaUy, considering the third passage, the three- 1 The scriptural argument is discussed by Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, § vii. 2-11; Jackson, Works, Bk. III. chh. vii., viii.; Salmon, InfallibUity, pp. 332 et seq.; Robertson, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2nd Series, pp. 206-211; Gore, Roman Cath. Claims, ch. v.; Palmer, The Church, Pt. VII. ch. i. Roman Catholic arguments can be found in Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority, chh. vii.-ix.; Dom Chapman, Bp. Gore and the Cath. Claims, ch. v.; McNabb, InfallibUity, Pt. I. Waterworth gives a patristic catena in the same interest, in Faith of Catholics, Vol. I. pp. 331-340. 2 St. Matt. xvi. 16-19. On the division of opinion amongst the fathers, see Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 483-487; Salmon, InfallibUity, pp. 334 et seq. 3 St. Matt, xviii. 17, 18; xix. 28. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 11; Ephes. ii. 20. * St. Luke xxii. 31-34. 5 The word for strengthen, o-TTipt&iv, is used to describe St. Paul's work for his Churches, and similar labours of Judas and Silas at Antioch, and of Timothy at Thessalonica, Acts xiv. 22; xv. 32, 41; xviii. 23. St Paul even proposes to strengthen, ori/pix^""", those at Rome itself. Rom. i. n. " The care of all the Churches" (2 Cor. xi. 28), however taken, is a strange phrase for St. Paul to use in 12 162 COUNCILS AND POPES fold charge to feed Christ's sheep 1 is too obviously a restoration to the apostolate after the threefold betrayal to be interpreted as the conferring of an office on Peter in which the rest of the apostles were to have no share.2 In order to establish papal claims from Scripture, it is first necessary to furnish proof therefrom that Peter received from Christ an office of leadership in the apos toHc band. We do not deny this for one moment. But it must also be shown that this office was equivalent in real authority, whatever lack of formality may have attended its exercise, to that attributed by the Vatican Council to the Papal See; for if the Papal See has taken to itself more authority than Peter possessed, such au thority has a later origin and is not received through Peter. But we do not find that Peter was conscious of possessing anything more than a personal leadership among equals. Certainly he possessed no other infalh- biHty than the pentecostal inspiration in which the other apostles shared. Our Lord's promise of indefecti biUty, although addressed to him, was made to the Church at large ; 3 and when St. Paul gives a list of the describing his own responsibilities, if St. Peter had been given this prerogative. Its real meaning appears in the light of the apostolic recognition that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to St. Paul, as that of the circumcision was to St. Peter. Gal. ii. 7-9. The care of the Gentilic Churches was given to St. Paul in the same manner as the care of the Jewish Churches was given to St. Peter. See Salmon, InfallibUity of the Church, pp. 342—345. 1 St. John xxi. 15-17. " Lambs " is used once. 2Cf. Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. n. 3 "The gates of hades shall not prevail against it," afo-ijs. St. Matt. xvi. 18. THE PAPAL SEE 163 Church's ministries, he gives the first rank expressly to the apostles, not to Peter.1 In short, to be "chief" of the apostles 2 did not mean to occupy a higher office than the rest, but simply a personal leadership among peers. The "chief comer stone" was not Peter, who is classed with the rest, but " Christ Himself." 3 It needs to be proved, thirdly, that our Lord insti tuted Peter's office, whatever it was, to be a permanent office in the Church mihtant, and to be transmitted to successors in every generation. There is absolutely no evidence of this. FinaUy it needs to be shown that the distinctive office of Peter was actually transmitted to, and permanently lodged in, the hands of the Bishops of Rome, to be possessed and exercised by them until the end.4 That the Bishops of Rome have been reck oned as the successors of Peter par excellence is indis putable, but this is due to ex post facto and human accidents in the rise of papal power which we have 1 1 Cor. xii. 28. 2 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11. The phrase is really "the chief apostles," tuv inrephlav airoaroXwv. 3 Ephes. ii. 20. Cf. the twelve thrones, St. Matt. xix. 28, which are promised to the apostles on equal terms. Bearing in mind a curious bit of recent exegesis, we grant that it is not unfitting that the leader of the apostles should be honoured in the Apocalypse, xxi. 18-19, by an assimilation of the symbol — jasper — which represent^ him among the twelve apostolic foundations, to the ma terial of the superimposed walls of the heavenly city. That his leadership is thus mystically referred to is possible, but that this leadership lifts him out of the intrinsic rank of the rest is not apparent. * On these two parts of the argument from Scripture, see Palmer, The Church, Pt. VII. ch. ii; Beveridge, Works, Vol. I. p. 123; Jeremy Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, § vii. 8; Salmon, Infallibility, p. 333. 164 COUNCILS AND POPES already considered. Certainly other ancient sees share with Roine in the Petrine succession, and no scriptural evidence can be given that the Roman succession carries with it any unique prerogative, not transmitted, for instance, to the See of Antioch. In brief, while Scripture shows that our Lord and the apostles recognized St. Peter's leadership among the twelve, there is no evidence of his possessing the tremendous prerogatives which we are considering; or that such prerogatives, if he possessed them, were to be transmitted by divine arrangement to a line of suc cessors; or that the Roman See was to be the divinely appointed throne of such successors. § 18. (c) Our third general reason for rejecting the Vatican claims is that the system of authority which is involved fails to work/ This failure appears in several particulars. i. The official actions and utterances of the Papal See have at times been made and performed in, heretical interests.^ We mention only a few notorious instances. Liberius certainly identified himself with Arian inter ests at a critical moment.1 Pope Damasus at first acquitted Pelagius, and then changed his attitude under pressure.2 Honorius wrote official letters that were 1 This is generally acknowledged, e.g. by Dom. Chapman, Bp. Gore and the Cath. Claims, p. 38. "If Liberius momentarily fell, he was firm both before and after." 2 This is met by the contention that his error concerned fact only, viz. that Pelagius taught the errors attributed to him. That such was the limit of his error was not obvious to the African Synod that resisted his decision, nor is it to historical students. THE PAPAL SEE 165 generaUy taken as committing him to a judgment that Monothehtism was not heretical; and he was anathe matized as a heretic not only by the sixth Ecumenical CouncU, but also by each of his papal successors for centuries.1 The reply that these utterances were not ex cathedra is not satisfactory, since it draws attention to a second Une of failure of the Vatican system to work. ii. This is the impossibUity of laying down a practical rule for distinguishing ex cathedra utterances which will be consistent with the Vatican assertion that these utterances are irreformable ex sese, non autem ex con sensu ecclesia. One would naturaUy suppose that an ex cathedra utterance meant any official one, intended to possess the doctrinal authority of the Papal See.2 If such were its meaning it would be hard to exclude from such a category the letter of Honorius. Roman writers repudiate it, however, but are not agreed as to what precisely does distinguish an ex cathedra »The Roman Catholic Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Bk. XVI. §§ 296, 298, 320, 324, treats of the case at length. He says, "That the sixth (Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorious on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt." He mentions the Liber Diurnus as containing the oath which each new Pope had to take, that "he recognized the sixth (Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy [their names follow], together with Honorius, quia pravis hareticorum asser- tionibus fomen turn impendit." Cf. Die. of Christian Biog., s. v. "Honorius"; Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 433, 434, 439-442. The anathema was published in the Breviary until the sixteenth cen tury. There is something grotesque in calling an infallible Pope a heretic. ' So Salmon, InfallibUity, pp. 250, 434-439. 166 COUNCILS AND POPES pronouncement.1 In any case, the rarity of such papal utterances as Roman CathoUcs wiU acknowledge to be ex cathedra — no others are said by them to be infallible — is remarkable, in view of the insistence that the Church must have a living voice, one which is able to afford infallible definitions in times of con fusion.2 ^_ § 19. {d) Finally, we reject the Vatican claim because it subverts the working of that infallibility wherewith, as the Vatican decree itself acknowledges, " the divine Re deemer willed that His Church should be endowed." Thus, by making the ex cathedra definitions of the Pope irreformable, and that apart from the consent of the Church at large, the supreme prerogative of the Church to be the judge of her own mind is brought to an end. It is not a satisfactory reply that papal definitions are 1 Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 376-385, gives some of the more important views of Roman writers. Carson, Reunion Essays, II., so multiplies the conditions necessary to be fulfilled that he is driven to limit such utterances to the Tome of Leo and the definition of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. It is to be added that one of these two, the Tome of Leo, was not ad dressed to the whole Church — ¦ a condition usually required by Roman writers. But can a system of teaching be said to work which only twice fulfils its own requirements in nineteen centuries? 2 It may be replied that we are equally helpless; but such is not the case, for we recognize that the living voice of the Church does not need to be uttered at all times in the form of fresh definitions, but gains sufficient and effective utterance in the normal working system of the Church, and in what the Church continues to enforce every where. It is the a priori assumption that more than this is essential which makes the non-working value of the ex cathedra system so apparent and so damaging. THE PAPAL SEE 167 in reahty the Church's own utterances in her final court of appeal.1 That court of appeal may fail to work correctly, and the Church cannot be deprived by her agents of the right and duty to be herself the final court of appeal, in such case. The Vatican system is inevitably provincial in working, and Itahan Rome is no longer the microcosm of the inteUectual Ufe of the Church, as it was in the days of Irenaeus, but is dominated by a Curia which exhibits conspicuous incapacity to understand anything that innovates upon its own scholastic and purely pro vincial traditions.2 A system that hampers every effort to face modern knowledge and criticism frankly, and shuts up the ablest scholars to a blind submission in matters that He beyond the proper sphere of the Church's dogmatic office, must necessarily bring ecclesiastical authority into disrepute, unless bravely disowned. § 20. The glamour of Rome appeals to persons of a certain temperament very powerfully. But what • So Carson in effect, Reunion Essays, p. 99. He cites Dr. Ryder as saying, "Although the consensus ecclesia is banished from the ratio essendi of papal infallibility, it remains still largely a factor in the ratio cogniscendi." That is, the recognition of an ex cathedra decision does not validate it, but enables us to identify it. "And did we lack it," Ryder adds, "We might in certain cases suspect failure." This either means nothing, or an acknowledgment that catholic consent after all has the final word. 2 The encyclical on Modernism, recently issued by Pius X., was undoubtedly framed by the Pope's Italian advisers, although it has his authority. Its effect has been to raise questions that are very grave indeed. 168 COUNCILS AND POPES rational plausibiHty the Roman argument possesses is very largely due to a priori assumptions, upon which its vaUdity depends, but which need only to be denned to appear insufficient. Some of these have been treated- of, either directly or indirectly, in previous sections of this volume. For example : {a) that the Church's voice is not really " Uving, " unless able to issue fresh dogmatic definitions at will; J (6) that the Catholic Church and the papal obedience are conterminous, as if the papal system had been proved to be of the esse of the Church — the very point at issue; (c) that submission to the Church's authority — more specifically, to the Papal See — must inevitably end all confusion and doubt, and bring peace.2 There are, however, two matters that ought to be touched upon, which have not yet received notice. (a) It is urged, a priori, that the Church being a visible organism, its Head should belong to the same order of life with the body. The Head must also be visible.8 The fallacy of this becomes obvious when we substitute "earthly" for "visible," for that is the sense in which the term is used. ' The Church referred 1 See above, ch. iv. § 7; and below, ch. viii. § 4. 2 See above, ch. iii. § 14 (e). The alleged internal unity and peace of the Roman Communion are only apparent, and due to severe repressive discipline. There are signs to-day, however, of grave unrest, and the history of the last three centuries shows that such unrest is recurrent. See Palmer, The Church, Vol. I. App. I. -IV. 'Urged by Rivington, Authority, p. 5; replied to by Gore, Roman Cath. Claims, ch. ii.; to whom Dom Chapman gives a rejoinder, Bp. Gore and the Cath. Claims, ch. ii. See also Carson, Reunion Essays, p. no. THE PAPAL SEE 169 to is only a part of the organism. It is the Church miUtant; and unless we assume mistakenly, that the Church mihtant is an organism by itself, complete and • self-sufficient apart from the rest of the body mystical, the argument is futile. It should be restated as fol lows: The Church mihtant ought to be free from schism and division of interests, if her intrinsic sacra mental unity in Christ is to be apparent to the world, and if her propaganda is to prosper. This, of course, is true. But the external manner of securing visible unity to the Church on earth was not denned by Christ, and may vary. The Vatican manner has never been accepted by the CathoHc Church. On the contrary, the approximations towards Vaticanism of the ages gone by have been the chief formal cause of the schisms which we now lament.1 If true charity pre vailed everywhere, the problem of visible unity could be solved by any one of various external arrangements; and without such charity no method whatever wiU suc ceed. The fatal objection to the Vatican method is that it hands over to the control of one fallible See and Curia interests that have been intrusted by Christ to the entire Church. This is why all questions as to the righteousness of our break with Rome in the 1 We do not forget other causes: e.g. racial jealousies between East and West; political interests helping on the Anglican break with Rome; and, as determining the particular moment of the break, the will of Henry VIII. We believe that, however deplorable, the break, quite apart from the King's action, was inevitable. We are further convinced that neither of the schisms above mentioned would have occurred if papal claims had not exceeded due warrant. 170 COUNCDLS AND POPES sixteenth century are now purely academic. The Vati can Council has created a new situation; and, until its definitions have been abandoned, either by repeal or by interpretation into inconsequence,1 submission on our part to papal government would be a betrayal of the dogmatic office of the Church. (6) The other point to be noticed is the alleged immutabiUty of the papal system. It is said that this immutability is the very key-note of the Vatican po sition, and pertains to its esse. Those who urge this forget to distinguish between the Roman Church and Vaticanism. Vaticanism is but a human phenomenon in the history of the Roman See. No doubt, it cannot change and live. But the death of Vaticanism does not involve the death of the Roman Church; nor will it stultify any future prelates who may become instru mental in emancipating that Church from its present nightmare.2 The truth is that nothing human is immutable; and it is impossible to regard the present position of the Roman See as irreformable, except on the assumption which we have given reasons for repudiating — that 1 Such interpretation has already begun to be made by Roman Catholic apologists. See Darwell Stone, Christian Church, ch. xiii. XI ., XIII.; Carson, Reunion Essays, II. But the development of this interpretation must become general, and beyond reasonable possi bility of reversal, before the difficulty created by Vaticanism will cease to be insuperable. On the change of situation caused by the Vatican decree, see Forbes, XXXIX. Articles, 2nd edition, pp. 822 et seq. 2 Succeeding generations in the Church of Rome will not be re sponsible for the position which they inherit; and will, therefore, be able to reform it without inconsistency. THE PAPAL SEE 171 Vaticanism defines what Christ has appointed. The Papal See must adjust its position and methods, so far as they are of human growth, to the changing conditions, the advancing civihzation, and the increasing spiritual inteUigence of the people on whose allegiance its con tinuance absolutely depends. It must do this or die. That is, it must outgrow Vaticanism. We believe that it wiU; and that it has a future, by reason of such readjustment of attitude, with which we must some day reckon. Our present duty in the Anglican Church is to recover to the fuU the ecumenical spirit, and to mani fest more and more our devotion and loyalty to the rich heritage which we share with the rest of the CathoHc Church. As things are, we have a great work to achieve — to make clear to those who would serve Christ, but have unconsciously missed the way, the real nature and priceless value of the CathoHc Rehgion which Christ estabhshed for all time, and for them as weU as for us. CHAPTER VI BIBLICAL AUTHORITY I. Inspiration § i. We have somewhat anticipated the subject be fore us in treating of ecclesiastical authority, and in this treatise we are directly concerned only with such aspects of the Scriptures as are germane to Dogmatic Theology. Our discussions, therefore, wiU be com paratively brief. The following premises have been set forth in the previous chapters: (a) The Scriptures constitute, in connection with the Church, one of the two primary immediate sources of saving truth, and possess a derivative divine au thority.1 {b) The Scriptures contain, either expUcitly or im- pficitly, all doctrine necessary to be beHeved for sal vation: so that, whereas it is the appointed function of the Church to teach and define such doctrine, the Scriptures confirm and illustrate what the Church teaches; and nothing may be regarded as necessary to be believed which cannot be found therein, or proved thereby.2 1 See above, ch. iii. § 2. 2 Ibid., pp. 67, 68. 172 INSPIRATION 173 (c) Since the same Spirit who inspires the Scriptures also guides, the Church into aU truth, it is impossible that the whole Church should impose any doctrine as necessary to be believed for salvation, which cannot be proved by the Scriptures; and the Church's faith wiU always be found to furnish the true key to the fundamental purport of the Scriptures.1 {d) As containing the sacred deposit of truth which the Church began to teach in apostoUc days, the Scrip tures constitute a primary vehicle of the tradition of that deposit, and a sure means of verifying the agree ment of present-day ecclesiastical teaching with the faith of pentecostal days.2 In this and the next chapter we consider the basis of bibhcal authority, or the doctrine of inspiration; theories as to the method or methods of the inspiration of the sacred writers; bibhcal criticism, so far as it bears on the authority and authentication of inspired Scripture; and the theological interpretation of the Bible. § 2. The nature of the Bible is twofold. On the one hand, • it is a hbrary of exceedingly miscellaneous contents, exhibiting such characteristics of human Uterature as might be expected to appear in the times and under the circumstances and conditions of the origin of its various books. On the other hand, these diverse writings are made, one and all, to subserve a superhuman master-purpose which fuses them into 1 See above, pp. 113, 114; and below, ch. vii. § 10. 2 See above, ch. iv. § 9. 174 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY one Bible,1 wherein they acquire and exhibit connec tions and meanings which the human factors in their production, and the apparent purposes of their writers, do not fully account for or exhaust.2 The truth is that the Bible is one in a sense more complete than can be asserted of any other coUection of writings so various in Uterary type and human pur port. Speaking broadly, all the Sacred Scriptures subserve, either directly or indirectly, the common pur pose of recording and iUustrating the divine education of Israel; the process of divine self-manifestation; and the completion of both in the mystery of the Incar nate-Word, and in the deUvery to the Church of God of a faith which can never cease to be vaUd and suffi cient for the spiritual welfare of mankind. Israel's education and progress in spiritual knowledge, in spite of many national back-sfidings, exhibits unique and consistent meaning throughout, because determined and controlled by divine guidance. And the Sacred Scriptures not only constitute Uterary monuments of 1 The word is derived through the Latin from the Greek plural tA /9i0Xia, the Books. Long use, however, has given the force of the singular to the English "Bible." See Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. v. "Bible," A. I. 2 Sanday says, "But if we take a wider range, and look at the diversified products of this individual inspiration, and see how they combine together, so as to be no longer detached units but articulated members in a connected and coherent scheme, we must needs feel that there is something more than the individual minds at work; they are subsumed, as it were, in the operation of a larger Mind . . . We are no longer confined for our data to the consciousness of the individual writer." Inspiration, pp. 402-406. See below, ch. vii. § 15. INSPniATION 175 this progress, but are also inspired by the Holy Spirit. Such considerations account for the marvellous unity of the Bible. The uniqueness of the Bible is caused primarily by its inspiration.1 Modern criticism, while it has in creased our knowledge of the human origins and char acteristics of the several Scriptures, has compUcated men's notions of bibHcal inspiration; and great care is needed to distinguish between catholic doctrine on the subject and theories which, whatever may be their scientific value, are not of any dogmatic authority.2 For the sake of clearness the catholic doctrine may be stated in relation to (a) the sacred writers; (6) the im mediate message with which they were charged to their contemporaries; (c) and the resulting Canon of Holy Scripture. We adopt this method of statement when we affirm that the term "inspiration" has stood historicaUy in the CathoUc Church for the following distinct truths, all of which have ecumenical consent.3 (o) The human writers who had to do with the 1 As a corollary, in order to investigate successfully the methods of inspiration of the sacred writers, we should consider primarily those peculiarities of the Scriptures that differentiate them from other literatures of the same age; for it is in what is distinctive that the phenomena of inspiration are observable. 2 As we trust will become clear in these chapters, the catholic doctrine of inspiration cannot be modified in the slightest degree by the results of biblical criticism, which bear only on theories of the method of inspiration of the sacred writers. 'The best comprehensive treatise of the traditional type on biblical inspiration is, perhaps, Wm. Lee's Inspiration of Holy Scrip ture. Wordsworth, On the Inspiration of the Bible is also helpful, 176 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY production of the Bible were moved and assisted in various manners and degrees 1 by the Holy Spirit.2 (6) Their writings contain messages from God, ad dressed to the chosen race, and suited in content and purport to the several times of their deUvery, and usu ally to the circumstances of the moment. These mes sages had divine authority. The Holy Ghost "spake by the prophets." 3 but ad populum. Burgon's Inspiration and Interpretation is the work of an alarmist, but contains important matter. None of the above do justice to the questions raised by modern criticism. Those who do are often insecure in their hold upon catholic doctrine. West- cott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 31-53, is impor tant. Richey's What is the Bible; and Elmendorf's The Word and the Book; are both calculated to reassure, and are both for ordinary readers. The first essay in The Inspiration of Holy Scripture and Six Other Essays, edited by Percival, is a defence of catholic doctrine by Fr. Longridge, S.S. J.E. In the same interest, but limited in scope, are Liddon's Sermons on The Worth of the Old Testament; and The Inspiration of Selection. Among the best books that exhibit the modern critical temper may be mentioned Sanday's Oracles of God (popular); and Bampton Lees, on Inspiration; Robinson's Some Thoughts on Inspiration; and Watson's Inspiration. Wm. Barry's Tradition of Scripture is a useful Roman Catholic work; and Dods' The Bible is a very suggestive and modern protestant treatise. Patristic catenas and citations are given in Lee's Inspiration, pp. 77-93, and App. G.; Westcott's Introduction, App. B.; and Long- ridge's Essay above mentioned. 1 " God, who in many portions and in many manners spake of old unto the fathers in the prophets, in these last days spake unto us in His Son." Heb. i. ±, 2 (the Greek). 2 2 St. Pet. i. 21; 1 Cor. ii. 13. Cf. Exod. ii. 10-12; Job xxxii. 8; Isa. vi. 8, 9; Jerem. i. 4-9; Ezek. ii. 1-7; Amos vii. 14-16. 'Nicene Creed. The English "by" does not convey the full meaning of the Greek original (Sid), which permits us to believe, and indeed implies, that the personal equation of the prophets was en- INSPIRATION 177 (c) The resulting Canon or Bible, qua Bible, as authenticated by the Spirit-guided Church of God, has permanent, equal, and divine authority throughout: — that is, within the sphere of the divine purpose of inspiration in each several Scripture.1 This divine purpose is limited, and, of course, is spiritual.2 It is to be ascertained by devout study of Scripture itself, in the light of completed revelation.3 But every part of Scripture, when rightly interpreted, in its sacred and canonical context, bears somehow, even if indirectly, upon divine purposes and teachings. In short, every part of Scripture has a divine purport; and, in that purport, is inerrant.4 The importance of distinguishing between the in spiration of the sacred writers and that of the Bible, listed in the message. See Heb. i. 1: "God, who . . . spake of old unto the fathers in (iv) the prophets." Cf. St. Luke i. 70; Exod. ii. 12; Deut. iv. 2; Isa. vi. 8; Jerem. i. 7, 9; Ezek. ii. 4, 7; Amos ii. 15, 16. Note the many instances in which the prophets profess to have received and to deliver "the word of the Lord." 1 2 Tim. iii. 15-17; 2 St. Pet. i. 19, 21. Cf. St. John v. 39; Acts xvii. 11. 2 "The Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture . . . is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete," etc., 2 Tim. iii. 15-17. "In them ye think ye have eternal life," St. John v. 39. Cf. Rom. xv. 4; 1 Cor. x. 11. 3 "Which are able to make thee wise . . . through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Cf. St. Luke xxiv. 25-27; Rom. xvi. 16. 4 St. John xvii. 17: "Thy word is truth." Cf. x. 35: "And the Scripture cannot be broken." Prov. xxx. 5, 6: "Every word of God is pure ... Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Note the frequent expression, "that it might 13 178 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY qua Bible, will appear shortly, when we consider the subject of degrees of inspiration. § 3. The word inspiration, in its etymological sense of breathing into,1 describes the action of the Holy Spirit upon the sacred writers. Our knowledge of the purposes, degrees, and methods of this inspiration is to be derived from a critical study of the Scriptures, and from a comparison of them with other Hterature. The Church has not defined in this direction, and our theories must be governed by the assured results of such study — not by a priori conceptions.2 Modern bibhcal criticism, in spite of the rationaHstic vagaries of some critics, has thrown much Ught on the subject. When we speak of the sacred writers we mean all who had to do with producing the contents of the Bible in the form and context there found. That is, we include not only those who were inspired to com pose Hterature, but those also who were moved to se lect existing matter, and to purge, incorporate, redact, be fulfilled which was spoken": St. Matt. i. 22; viii. 17; xii. 17; xiii. 35; xxi. 4; xxvii. 35; espec. xxvi. 53-56: "But how then shall the Scrip tures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Cf. in general, Psa. xxxiii. 11; cxix. 160; Dan. x. 21; 2 St. Pet. i. 19. 1 See Thayer, Lexicon of New Test. Greek, s. v. 8etnrvevo*Tot. Cf. Murray, New Eng. Die., s. v. " Inspiration." 2 So conservative and careful a theologian as Darwell Stone says, Outlines of Dogma, p. 124, "No definite detailed theory about in spiration has been laid down by the Church in any councils, or ex pressly formulated by teachers who, when taken together, represent the mind of the Church." He rightly adds, "This absence of a defi nite and detailed theory has not hindered the existence among Chris tians of the most intense conviction that Holy Scripture is the Word of God." INSPIRATION 179 and supplement, whether by way of gloss or otherwise. Whatever view we may adopt as to current critical theories, we may hardly deny that some of the bibhcal writers took over pre-existing documents; 1 that certain of the Scriptures underwent subsequent editing; 2 and that accretions of later date than the contexts with which they were incorporated are discoverable in, and constitute parts of, our Sacred Canon.3 Scholars have detected traces of aU this in our existing Bible; and, to a very Umited extent, they can distinguish what was composed by the original writers of the canonical books, what was borrowed by them, and what was added by later hands.4 It would be a grave error indeed to sup pose that these borrowed and added parts should one and aU be eUminated from the written Word ; 5 and, therefore, it would seem that the Holy Spirit moved the ancients to select, modify, and supplement, as well as to engage in fresh composition. At aU events, private judgment is not competent to reverse any judgment 1 The narratives of the Book of Genesis were certainly not based exclusively on oral tradition, or on special revelations. 2 That the Pentateuch has not come to us in its precise original form is acknowledged generally. Cf. Orr, Problem of the Old Test., PP- 375-377- 3 The account of Moses' death is acknowledged to be post-Mosaic by those who, like the writer, believe in the Mosaic source of the general contents of the Pentateuch. The last verses of St. Mark's Gospel are considered to be an addition, although very ancient. * One reason for mistrusting the conclusions of certain modern critics of the Pentateuch has been the excessive exactness with which they have distributed its contents into distinct documentary sources. 6 Our Lord certainly appears to authenticate the Old Testament in a form that includes such elements. 180 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY which may be given by the Church as to the Uterary content of the Word of God.1 The circumstances which occasioned the writing of the several Scriptures, and the immediate ends, human and divine, that they were designed to subserve, are exceedingly diverse. This needs no elaboration, for it is generaUy acknowledged, and is iUustrated by the variety of types of literature produced — histories, al legories, legal codes, prophecies, apocalypses, dramas, lyrical poems, and so forth.2 What is more apt to be misunderstood and mis- appHed is the evidence, seemingly conclusive, that the sacred writers were not all inspired in the same degree. This evidence is primarily the unequal spiritual value, when considered separately and intrinsically, of the different portions of Scripture. Some books are ob viously less charged with direct spiritual significance than others, and the inference is natural and inevi table that the assistance afforded to their writers was lower in degree and less illuminative in effect.3 It is 1 Its competency is shown rather in determining to some extent the human sources of what is contained in the Canon, the dates and historical circumstances of their origin, and the faithfulness of exist ing texts to the original. 2 Thus conservative writers distinguish between what was inspired for the purpose of revelation and what was not inspired for that end. See Lee, Inspiration, pp. 40-45; Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 34-36. St. Augustine distinguishes between what the sacred writers produced by historical diligence, and what they wrote as prophets. De Civ. Dei, xviii. 38. 3 It is not inconsistent with such inference that we should avoid the error of thinking that the illuminative value of the several parts INSPIRATION 181 impossible to suppose, for instance, that the writers of the books of Judges and Esther were as fuUy inspired as was the writer of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Very few will question this contention.1 It is a grave mistake, however, to infer that the pres ent authority of the several books of Scripture is un equal; that is, when considered with reference to their place in the Canon and the divine purposes which they are made to subserve in the written Word. This writer was moved, and assisted to the degree necessary, to write for one immediate purpose of God, and that writer for another purpose. And each resulting docu ment in its permanent aspects has its own end to fulfil and its own divine purport in the completed Canon. of Scripture to ourselves can be used as an accurate measure of the degrees with which their writers were inspired. We are not com petent to judge safely in such matters, except in the most general and vague way. 1 Differences in the degrees of inspiration do not alter, of course, the reality of a divine inspiration in each case. Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 42-47, shows that some of the ancients recognized these differ ences of degree. The subject was not adequately considered by them, however. He gives further remarks, pp. 257-259, on St. Paul's consciousness of an unequal inspiration in relation to different matters; and, in App. D., the patristic comments on 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25, 40, wherein this consciousness appears. Cf. Watson, Inspiration, ch. xviii. Lee, Inspiration, pp. 34, 62, 403 et seq., contends that the tendency of the theory that the inspiration of sacred writers differs in degrees "is to fine down to the minutest point, if not altogether to deny, the agency of the Holy Spirit in certain portions of the Bible." But, although such a tendency has shown itself, it arises from inadequate hold on catholic doctrine and from a rationalistic animus, not from acknowledgment of the facts, which are indisputable. As Lee points out, the Jewish doctors recognized different degrees of 182 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY Such differences of purpose, in view of the generaUy acknowledged law of parsimony in divine operations,1 involved unequal degrees of divine assistance and differ ent levels of direct edifying value in the result. But in each case the inspiration was divine, and the result as weU — a Uterature rightly to be caUed the Word of God. Not aU Scripture contains supernatural revela tion, nor are the revelations there contained equaUy fuU or expHcit; but every Scripture, in one way or another, subserves the progressive self-manifestation of God to His people. So it is erroneous to measure the present authority of the several parts of the Bible by their edifying quaUty. To do so is to nulfify the basis of bibUcal authority; which is not the amount of spiritual matter that its several parts contain, or the degree of inspira tion enjoyed by their writers, but the fact that God has made the whole to be His Word. If we reckon the authority of a book of Scripture according to its edifying value for ourselves, we do not accept it because inspiration for the three parts into which the Old Testament Canon was divided — the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. Cf. Ellicott, Foundations of Sac. Study, pp. 61, 62. A declaration on inspiration issued in 1894, with signatures of Dr. Bright of Oxford, Canon Carter, Canon Furse, W. H. Hutchings, P. G. Medd, W. C. E. Newbolt, F. W. Puller, B. W. Randolph, Darwell Stone, and other conservative theologians, says, "By inspiration is meant a special action of the Holy Ghost, varying in character and degree of intensity," etc. 1 The law, that is, that God does not manifest Himself, or lay bare His power, needlessly, or uselessly. See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 417-421- INSPIRATION 183 authoritative, but on its merits, as determined by our own private judgment. The conclusion of the matter is that, when we assert that the inspiration of the sacred writers was unequal in degree, we should be careful not to mean, or seem to mean, that the existing Sacred Scriptures have unequal authority for the several pur poses of their inspiration.1 If diversity appears in the occasions, immediate pur poses and degrees of inspiration of the sacred writers, the same may be said as to the methods of inspiration. But we shaU consider this subject later on, under the head of theories of inspiration. § 4. The term inspiration has a derivative signifi cance as weU as its primary or etymological one, and is used to describe the authoritative nature of the divine messages and Uterature which the sacred writers de- Hvered and composed. This extended apphcation of the term is too weU estabhshed historicaUy to be set aside on the plea of etymology.2 The use of a word in Uterature must determine its meaning. It should be added that important theological consequences are Ukely to be involved in a refusal to apply the term • It is because certain writers ignore the distinct use of the word inspiration, as applied to the Bible, qua Bible, that their broad and unqualified assertion of degrees in biblical inspiration seems to have such meaning. In certain instances it obviously does. 2 In 2 Tim. iii. 16, the one instance in which the word Oedirvevo-Tot occurs in the Bible, the term is found in the derivative sense. By no legitimate exegesis can the phrase traaa ypatpii Sebtrvevo-Tos be inter preted so as to avoid the conclusion that St. Paul is describing the Scriptures themselves to be inspired of God. 184 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY "inspired" to the messages of the prophets and to bibh cal writings, as distinguished from their human authors. These consequences pertain to the divine authority of existing biblical Hterature.1 At all events, when the productions of the sacred writers are said to be inspired, the meaning is that they have divine authority; and this is the case, whether we speak of the immediate messages of the writers to those whom they addressed, or of the Sacred Canon in its permanent aspects. The two should be distinguished. Speaking of the immediate messages first, the doc trine is to be maintained that the teaching which the prophets and apostles uttered and wrote in God's name came fromGod,and constituted "the Word of theLord" to those who were addressed. Such messages were not, in their immediate bearing, necessarily pertinent to other times and circumstances than those of the moment, or to other people than those who were osten sibly addressed ; 2 but, for the time and for their re- 1 The late Bishop Ellicott cannot be regarded as one who would fall short in accepting the divine authority of the Scriptures. Yet his assertion that inspiration inheres in the writer, not the writing, leads him to define inspiration in a way that involves logically a denial of divine authority to such parts of Scripture as do not record divine revelations. He defines inspiration as "the direct equipment by the inflowing of the Holy Spirit for adequately expressing in human language the truths revealed by Almighty God to the spirit of the recipient." Foundations of Sac. Study, pp. 58-60. 2 We maintain elsewhere, cf. ch. vii. § 15, that divine inspiration also imparted a larger and more permanent bearing to Old Testa ment prophecy —one that could not become apparent until the pub lication of the Gospel. INSPECTION 185 cipients, their authority was divine — they were divinely inspired.1 Speaking formaUy, however, much of Scripture was written for ends that did not warrant such an intro ductory phrase as "Thus saith the Lord." The sacred writers were moved to produce historical narratives, for example, as well as to convey direct divine com munications. In this fact, perhaps, we shall find the basis of the contention that the Bible contains rather than is the Word of God.2 The fact that not every part of Scripture is, in form, a message from God is certain. But we may not infer that divine authority is lacking to any part of the Bible; which should be acknowledged to be the Word of God in aU its parts, and for aU time. This is true in spite of the fact that its several portions differ widely in the pur poses of their inspiration, and in the manners in which they embody and iUustrate the divine mind and teaching. 1 Sanday's Inspiration, pp. 144-155, is excellent on this subject. A notable New Testament illustration is found in Acts xv. 28, 29. "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," etc. And this pas sage illustrates our contention that the divine messages in Scripture do not invariably, in their immediate meaning, apply to other times and circumstances than those of the moment. The rules laid down in that message have, in part, ceased to have binding force. 2 Lee, Inspiration, App. C, p. 401, maintains that this contention can be traced to Judaic sources through Le Clerc and Grotius. Ellicott, Foundations of Sac. Study, p. 67, shows that the phrase "is the Word of God" teaches the union between the divine and human in the Scriptures, whereas the phrase "contains the Word of God" teaches their distinctness. 186 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY § 5. And this constitutes another derivative use of the word "inspiration"; which signifies the permanent divine authority of the Bible, qua Bible, in aU its parts, and irrespectively of human authorships and immediate purposes and degrees of inspiration of the sacred writers. AU the Sacred Scriptures alike have God for their Author, as well as man, and are truly and properly to be called the Word of God.1 It should be added that this doctrine is most com monly meant by ecclesiastical writers when they speak 1 In the fourth of the vows in The Ordering cf Priests, the Scrip tures are alluded to as "God's Word." American candidates have to sign a declaration, when ordained to any grade in the ministry, the opening clause of which reads, "I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God": Constitution, Art. VIII., Digest of 1904. The Council of Trent, Sess. IV., says, the Synod "receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, — seeing that one God is the Author of both," etc. The Vatican Council, Sess. III. cap. i., says that the Church holds these books to be holy and canonical, "not because having been compiled by human industry alone they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error; but because, being written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God as their Author and have been delivered as such to the Church herself." Turning to the East, the Synod of Bethlehem (or Jerusalem), A.D. 1672, adopted as its own The Confession of Dositheus, the second decree of which says, "We believe the Divine and Sacred Scriptures to be God-taught." Robertson, Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, p. 112. Darwell Stone, Outlines of Dogma, note 38, gives references to the same effect from the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage; Second Council of Lyons; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I. i. 10, etc. Patristic citations are given in Lee, Inspiration, App. G. INSPIRATION 187 of bibhcal inspiration,1 and has for us the most direct and central importance of the three truths connoted by the word inspiration. The inspiration of the sacred writers is indeed a truth of vital importance to theology, as is also the divine authority of prophetic teaching in its immediate purpose; but, unless the Bible which is in our hands is the Word of God, its authority in the proper sense of that term is reduced to a purely his torical and academic level. That is, our dependence upon Scripture as an authoritative source of spiritual knowledge wiU be conditioned by the results of his torical and critical scholarship touching facts and messages of a remote past.2 The supreme question for those who depend upon Holy Scripture is this: "Are we warranted in befieving that Holy Scripture, in the substantial form now authenticated to us by the Church, and independently of the uncertainties of historical and critical scholarship, is to be received as the veritable Word of God?" The cathoUc doctrine which we are setting forth answers, "Yes." 1 We do not mean that they are in the habit of distinguishing formally between the inspiration of the writers and that of the Scrip tures as such; but that the existing Scriptures, and their divine authority, are primarily in mind. 2 The Bible contains, indeed, a world of matter that commands the assent of spiritually minded men irrespectively of its source. But to recognize the intrinsic merits and truth of Uterature, while it may fortify our belief in its divine authority, does not alone constitute, or afford sufficient basis for, such belief. Other literature secures our approval and acceptance on its merits; but we accept no literature as having been given us by divine authority, except the Canonical Scriptures. 188 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY This doctrine includes or involves the foUowing propositions : {a) When Holy Scripture is said to be inspired, "In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testa ment, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." The language quoted is historically inac curate. But the principle implied is that we accept what has been acknowledged by the Church to be canonical Scripture.1 (6) In saying that the Scriptures have God for their Author, we do not exclude human authorship or human pecuharities of literary style and method. The human factor ought to be acknowledged in the produc tion of each and every part of Scripture; and the facts require us to confess that the sacred writers were not made universaUy infaUible by this inspiration, but were permitted to embody many traces in Scripture of their limitations in knowledge.2 These limitations do not 1 Arts of Religion, VI. On the authentication of Scripture, see the next section of this chapter. 2 The human element of Scripture is discussed in relation to bibli cal criticism below, ch. vii. §§ 3-7. It is discussed at large in a mul titude of modern treatises. For example, on traditional lines, in Lee, Inspiration, pp. 32, 33, 35-38, 139-144; Garbett, God's Word Written, ch. viii.-x.; and Wordsworth, Inspiration, pp. 5-8; in a more modern spirit, and carefully, in Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 33-42; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, pp. 90-93; and Watson, Inspiration, chh. xiv., xv. The union of divine and human elements in Scripture is often likened to the union of two natures in our Lord. But the analogy has an important limitation. There is no hypostatic union involved in biblical inspiration. In the utterances of Christ the ideas and INSPIRATION 189 interfere, however, with the inerrant authority of the Scriptures in their divine purport.1 (c) The inspiration of Scripture is fuU and absolute; which means simply that its authority is truly and properly divine, although derivative. This imphes that it possesses a divine meaning, as distinguished from certain human conceptions embodied therein; and that this divine meaning and teaching cannot be rejected consistently by those who acknowledge the omniscience and truthfulness of God. {d) Biblical inspiration is also plenary, in that it is to be acknowledged in relation to every part of Scrip ture. No portion of Scripture is lacking in divine authority within the range and purpose of its inspira tion. Every part of Scripture is the Word of God, as weU as the word of man. But the assertion that bibUcal inspiration is plenary leaves the question of method, whether by dictation or otherwise, entirely convictions that are expressed, whether divine or human, are one and all the ideas and convictions of a divine Person. This does not hold with all that gains expression in the Scriptures. What does hold is this: that the Scriptures throughout are both divine and human, and in such wise that we may neither separate the two elements nor disregard their distinct integrity in any part of the Bible. 1 Dr. Marcus Dods cannot be suspected of lack of the modern and critical temper, and he devotes a chapter to maintaining the thesis that, for its divine purpose, the Bible is infallible. See The Bible, ch. v. We are not saved the labour of ascertaining the divine pur pose in Scripture, in order to master its divine teaching; and this agrees with the law elsewhere laid down, that God does not will to relieve us from painstaking in the acquisition of spiritual knowledge. Cf. ch. iii. § 15 (e), above. 190 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY open. The verbal theory, as usually defined, is not involved.1 (e) All the Scriptures are inspired for one supreme purpose, which is the cause of their remarkable unity. This purpose is to exhibit in its progressive revelation and fulfilment God's plan of self-manifes tation and human redemption, culminating in the revelation of Jesus Christ and the estabhshment of His kingdom.2 (/) Each several part of Scripture is inspired to sub serve, in its own manner, this master purpose. Accord ingly, each part has a distinct immediate purpose which determines its divine purport, and the authorita tive use and meaning which it is designed of God to have. But the doctrine of biblical inspiration does not guarantee the truth of what is found in a Scripture that is interpreted without reference to the particular purpose of its inspiration, or in isolation from the rest of the Scriptures. {g) Bibhcal inspiration is unique in this, that its divine purpose, and the authority which it signifies, is not discoverable in any other literature. It is futile to deny that non-bibUcal writers have enjoyed super natural assistance in various degrees, and have thus 1 See below, § 10. The phrase "verbal inspiration" is ambiguous. It may mean merely that the Bible is inspired, qua Bible, throughout, which includes, of course, its words but implies nothing as to how they are inspired. It may also be intended to signify the so-called verbal theory, that the choice of words employed was exclusively divine. 2 See above, § 2, inil. INSPIRATION 191 been enabled to produce books that are spiritually edifying. But these books are to be accepted solely on their merits, for they have not been given the authority of the Word of God written.1 § 6. The primary and formal basis of our acceptance of the Scriptures as the Word of God is their authentica tion 2 as such by the Catholic Church. The Church's judgment is founded in reasons and warranted by evi dences that are avaihable for our consideration;3 but it has an authority and finafity that is not possessed by private judgment, however weU informed. It expresses the consent of the generahty of those who are spiritually competent to' weigh the evidence, and is guided by the same Spirit who inspired the sacred writers. At all events, the fact is certain that the historical cause of the assurance which Christian men have as to the divine • Cf. § 12, below. 2H. J. White, Hastings' Die. of the Bible, s. v. "Vulgate," p. 880, says in regard to the use of the term authentic by the Council of Trent, " The word 'authentica' seems to have been used and under stood not only in the sense of official, but also in the sense of accurate — at any rate to the extent that there were no mistakes in it which might lead to false doctrine in faith and morals . . . No verbal in spiration or infallible accuracy was claimed for it. Scholars might read their Bibles in the original tongues if they wished; but for or dinary use it was advisable to have one standard edition (' authenticam hac mente ut cujus fas sit earn legere sine periculo') instead of a number of independent and unauthorized translations.'- In brief, to authenticate Holy Scripture means to certify that the sacred books contained in the Bible are the Word of God, and that the texts or versions recognized by such authentication can be used safely as preserving the Word of God with substantial faithfulness. 3 They are summarized in § 8, below. 192 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY authority of Holy Scripture, and as to what is Holy Scripture and what is not, is the witness of the Church universal. Furthermore, no judgment except that of the Church is of sufficient weight and authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in general to an acceptance of the divine authority of the Scriptures. It is a part of the Church's teaching function thus to authenticate the Scriptures, that is, to declare what is to be received as the Word of God.1 Her method has been to recognize certain existing books as making up a Sacred Canon, and to provide that these books shaU be read in her pubUc services as the Word of God. It has not been practicable or necessary that she should determine their human authorships, or even their precise original texts. Yet the office of authenticating Scripture carries with it an authority to determine what texts and versions may be regarded as the authentic Word of God. In fact, however, the Church has never in her ecumenical capacity, whether collectively or diffusively, given formal and exclusive authentication to any particular 1 The Articles of Religion describe the Church as "a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ," Art. xx. It should be noted that the Church's authentication does not make Scripture to be the Word of God, as Haneberg, a Roman Catholic writer, maintained prior to the Vatican Council, but simply bears witness that it has God for its Author. St. Augustine says, "I would not give credit to the Gospel, except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto." Contra Epis. Manichaei, cap. v. Cf. Lacey, Elem. of Doctrine, pp. 23-26; Hooker, Eccles. Polity, III. viii. 13, 14; Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 51-58; Watson, Inspiration, ch. xvi.; Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. pp. 62-65; Tanquerey, De Fontibus Theol., §§ 41-49. INSPERATION 193 texts or versions.1 She has evidently not deemed such action necessary. In the first place, she has not re garded textual variations as necessarily destructive of authenticity; 2 although it is clearly in accordance with her mind that her critical scholars should seek to restore the original of every corrupted text as accurately as possible. Again, the substantial agreement of such texts and versions as have gained wide use in the Church is sufficiently close, in spite of multitudinous superficial variations, to render formal judgment as to which is to be preferred quite unnecessary.3 •The "textus receptus," so called, of the New Testament has no ecclesiastical authorization, but was put out by the Elzevir press in 1633 and was adopted by European scholars. It differs but little from the 3d edition of Stephanus, A.D. 1550, which was regarded as standard by English scholars. Both have become antiquated with the progress of textual criticism. See Scrivener's Introduction, edited by Miller, Vol. II., pp. 193-195; Julicher, Introd. to the New Test., § 53; Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Test., pp. 231, 232. The so-called "authorized" version was never really authorized by the English Church, although a certain edition of it — published by Eyre and Strahan in 1812 — was made the "Standard" by the American Church in 1823 (see Journal of Gen. Conv. of 1898, pp. 301-305, for a full account by Dr. Gold), which also authorized an edition containing alternative marginal readings in 1901 (Journal of 1901, p. 100, and App. XII.). The Roman Council of Trent au thenticated the Latin Vulgate (Sess. IV.); and the official edition now in use was issued in 1592 a.d. by the authority of Clement VIII. A kind of authentication is implied in the use of passages of Scripture in ecclesiastical Service Books, but there are no ecumenical Service Books. No text or version exists which has ecumenical authority, and no action has been taken by the Church which hampers textual criticism. 2 That is, of divine authority by virtue of substantial preservation of the Word of God written. 3 On textual criticism, see below, ch. vii. § 3. 14 194 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY But the passive attitude of the Church does not con stitute an abdication of her authority in controversy touching textual authenticity of the Word of God. This needs to be insisted on. Valuable and necessary as the work of textual critics certainly is, the authen ticity which the Church determines is dependent upon wider considerations than those with which textual criticism is concerned. This authenticity is based upon a preservation of the substantial teaching of Scripture, even more than upon verbal faithfulness to the original text, important as such faithfulness is. Critics claim no infallibility, and the best critical texts not only retain previously existing textual corruptions, but may also, by reason of erroneous conjectural emendations, contain new variations from the original. Conse quently, it is quite possible that a critical text, the superiority of which is undoubted, so far as the gen erality of its readings is concerned, may nevertheless contain errors of substantial importance, and subver sive of the divine teaching of the Scriptures. This is why it would be dangerous for the Church to surren der her right to pass judgment, if necessary, on the texts and versions, whether critical or otherwise, that come into use among the faithful. § 7. The question as to what books of Scripture have received ecumenical authentication requires brief consideration.1 No Ecumenical Council has taken 1 For the history of the Canon see Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. w. "Canon," by V. H. Stanton; "Old Test. Canon," by F. H. Woods; "New Test. Canon," by V. H. Stanton; Westcott, Canon of INSPIRATION 195 direct action on the subject; but the Council of Chalcedon is understood to have ratified the Canons of the Council of Laodicea,1 and thus indirectly to have authenticated all our present Canon, with the exception of the Apocalypse and the deutero-canonical books except Baruch. The Quinisext Council of Con stantinople, 692 a.d., ratified not only the Canons of Laodicea, but also those of Carthage, 419 a.d., and other documents containing Hsts of canonical books. This action was ratified by the seventh Ecumenical CouncU.2 The Hsts thus sanctioned agree in including all of our Canon except the deutero-canonical books, Esther and the Apocalypse. Esther is included in every Ust except those of Gregory Nazianzen and Amphilochius. The Apocalypse is included in the Usts of Athanasius the New Testament; Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Test. Charteris, Canonicity, gives valuable patristic evidence on the early reception of canonical books. 1 Canon I. of Chalcedon ratifies the Canons of the Synods of the holy fathers. Hefele, in his Hist, of the Councils, says that this action refers to an existing collection of Canons, part of which had been enacted by Provincial Councils. The Council of Chalcedon gave them ecumenical authority. See Bright, Notes on the Canons of the first Four General Councils, pp. 123-126; Percival, Ecum. Councils, pp. 267, 268. 2 Quinisext, Canon II.; 2d Nicea, Can. I. See Percival, pp. 361, 362, 555, 556. The Canons of Laodicea, Carthage, and the Quinisext referred to are given in their originals by Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 59-61. These and the other lists sanctioned are given in their several places in English by Percival. The other lists include those of SS. Athanasius, Gregory Naz., and Amphilochius, and the so called Apostolic Canons. See also Sanday, op. cit., pp. 6, 7. 196 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY and of the Council of Carthage. The deutero-canonical books are included generally in the Hst of Gregory Nazianzen, and partly in the other lists, excepting that of Amphfiochius which excludes them aU. Such is the nature of the indirect ecumenical action of the Church. The Council of Trent adopted a Hst which includes a majority of our deutero-canonical books;1 but this does not hinder Roman Catholic writers from giving them a lower rank than the proto-canonical books.2 The sixth Article of Rehgion mentions the deutero-canonical books, but not in the list of books " of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church"; and denies their use by the Church "to establish any doctrine." The conclusion of the matter, confirmed by a study of the growth of the Canon in patristic acceptance, is that, although historically inaccurate in saying there "was never any doubt in the Church," the sixth Article is sound in its teaching. The proto-canonical books, as they are contained in the English version of King James, gained a semi-formal acceptance in the ecumenical sphere by the concurrent action of ancient Synods. Their authority is therefore beyond dispute among those who acknowledge the authority of the Church. The deutero-canonical books are reckoned generally as a part of Holy Scripture; but not with the same freedom from doubt, nor with uni- 1 Sess. IV. Cf. Gibson, Thirty-Nine Arts., Vol. I. p. 233. 2Cf. Schouppe, Elem. Theol. Dog., Tract IV., §§ 56-61; Hunter, Outlines of Dog. Theol, pp. 204, 205. INSPIRATION 197 versal dependence upon them for proof of ecclesias tical doctrine.1 § 8. The Church was led to authenticate the Scrip tures by reasons which are available for our considera tion, and which serve to confirm her judgment as to the divine authority of the canonical books. These books were not accepted all at once, or because of any special revelation, although the Church was un doubtedly guided by the Holy Spirit in her final judg ment. In the case of some of the New Testament books, the process of arriving at a final decision was more or less protracted. We proceed to summarize the reasons that appear to have determined the Church's judgment, and the ma terial evidences which confirm the catholic doctrine that the Scriptures which the Church has authenticated are what she declares them to be, the Word of God.2 (a) The Old Testament Canon, as formed by the Jewish Church, was understood to have received the sanction of Christ, and was authenticated by the Church on that ground. Perhaps an immediate reason that determined the contents of the Canon for the Jews 1 See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 91-96; Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. v. "Apocrypha"; Gibson, Thirty-Nine Arts., vi., pp. 274-279; Pusey, Eirenicon, Vol. II. pp. 122 et seq. 2 On the grounds of the Church's authentication of Scripture, and the arguments which confirm her judgment as to their divine inspira tion, see Watson, Inspiration, chh. vi.-xiii.; Laud, Conference with Fisher, xvi. pp. 71 et seq. (Ang. Cath. Lib.); Jackson, Works, Bk. I. ch. iii. Vol. I. pp. 23-25; Field, The Church; Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 43-53; Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 55-58, 105- 115, 147-155; Lee, Inspiration, Lee. VI. 198 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY was their suitableness for public reading in the synagogues. The Church's acceptance of the Old Testament books constituted a precedent; and the in completeness and inadequacy of the Old Testament, viewed from the standpoint of the revelation of Jesus Christ, demanded the incorporation of later writings into the Canon. {b) The apostoUc authorship of certain existing documents caused them to be considered first; for the apostles were believed to have taught with a special divine inspiration, and to have shown an unmistakable consciousness of writing with the authority of the Holy Spirit.1 A similar consideration undoubtedly deter mined the previous Jewish acceptance of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament.2 At all events, the authorships, and apparent claims to inspiration, of many of the books of Scripture challenge a considera tion of their authenticity as the Word of God, and pre-dispose believers to its acknowledgment. (c) The transcendent spiritual quality of the bulk, at least, of bibhcal Uterature convinced the Church of its supernatural inspiration, and served as a criterion by which to differentiate its books from uninspired Htera ture. This appears in the doubts which were felt touching some of the Old Testament books, and in the absolute rejection of the apocryphal Gospels. It is also seen in the immense superiority of the early narra tives of the Old Testament over the corresponding 1 See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 145-149. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 13. 2 See Isa. vi. 8, 9; Jerem. i. 4-9; Ezek. ii. 1-7; Amos vii. 14-16. INSPntATION 199 traditional and mythical documents of ancient gentihc races.1 {d) Convinced as the Church was that her own tra ditional faith had been divinely revealed, she necessarily scrutinized the teaching of the books which she accepted, and was influenced in her determination by their con formity to this faith. Recognizing, however, that divine revelation had been progressive, she did not consider the relative defectiveness of Old Testament teaching to be a reason for rejecting its books. But the fact that the Old Testament Scriptures pointed unmistakably to the fuUer revelation of Jesus Christ was regarded as confirmatory of their divine inspiration. (e) The Scriptures were seen to be at one with each other, and to be dominated in their fundamental sig nificance by a master purpose which distinguished the coUection as a whole from aU merely human produc tions. This fact confirmed the behef in their inspira tion as a whole; and also determined the authenticity of each book. No book could be authenticated which failed to harmonize with the rest of Scripture and could not find an organic place therein. (/) The sobriety and truthful quaUty of the Scrip tures, as seen, for instance, in their narrative portions, and as contrasted with the defective sincerity, vanity, and exaggeration exhibited in other ancient writings, undoubtedly had their influence. The sacred writers take no pains to conceal their own shortcomings or those of the heroes of their race; and there is no trace 1 See Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, pp. 97-99. 200 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY of effort to embeUish or to astonish the reader with wonders or other sensational material. The writers are free to a unique degree from objectionable self- consciousness. {g) The abiding and cathoUc value of the sacred books, which was increasingly realized as each new generation of Christians studied them, and their perma nent suitableness for pubhc reading in the Church's services, had a large part in determining the result. Some of the apostoHc writings have not been pre served ; J and the reason for this may be that their value and utihty was momentary only. No doubt they con tained sound and authoritative teaching, and served a divine purpose, but they were not necessarily suited for other conditions than those which caused them to be written. The Holy Spirit did not enable the Church to preserve and authenticate them. {h) As time went by an increasingly wide consensus of those who were competent to arrive at just conclu sions touching the claims of the canonical books tended to crystaUize and precipitate expressions of the Church's judgment. It should not be forgotten that the Church's mind is not only guided supernaturally, but is also the fruit of the meditations and studies of her saints and doctors.2 This consensus has continued, since the completion of the Church's Canon, to confirm the correctness of its ecclesiastical authentication. The Spirit has borne 'See Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 138-140. > See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 7-10. THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 201 witness aU along in the hearts and minds of countless believers, who have unceasingly marveUed at the trans cendent glory, truthfulness and value of the Sacred Scriptures for aU sorts and conditions of men, and for every age and race.1 II. Theories of Inspiration § 9. The advantage to bibUcal students of acquiring as inteUigent views as possible of the methods of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the sacred writers should be very apparent;2 although it is not vital that the faithful in general should understand these methods, provided they accept the Scriptures themselves as the Word of God. The Church does not define the methods of inspira tion, but leaves her scholars free to ascertain what they can in this direction by a critical examination of the Scriptures themselves. Such study has caused the adoption of various theories; and we are free to adopt any theory that appears to be required by the facts and 1 The protestant errs in making such witness of the Spirit in in dividual believers to be the primary ground of acceptance of the Scriptures, for individuals may easily mistake their own unassisted judgment for the witness of the Spirit. But that the Spirit does in some measure assist individual believers to discern the divine source of Scripture is certain. 2 Theories of inspiration are discussed by Lee, Inspiration, pp. 32-39; and App. C; Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s.v. "Bible," pp. 296-299; Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 28-47 and Lee. VIII.; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 80-89; Schouppe, Elem. Theol.Dog., Tract IV., §§ 28-55; Tanquerey, De Fonlibus Theol., § 51; Dods, The Bible. Lee. IV.; Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, App. B; Darwell Stone, Outlines of Dogma, pp. 124-130. 202 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY is consistent with the truth that the existing Sacred Scriptures have divine authority. § 10. {a) The verbal theory has been widely held; and has often been thought to be essential to a belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible. This is not the case. Plenary inspiration means the divine au thority of the whole Bible. We can accept this, and the Church teaches it, without being committed to any view touching the method of God in inspiring the sacred writers. The verbal theory concerns that method, and describes it as determining word by word the language chosen by the sacred writers, so that, in effect, every word was dictated by the Holy Spirit. The writers were mere secretaries, or, as certain ancient fathers put it, harps or lyres, the music of which was determined by the Holy Spirit.1 Those who hold such a view are 1 See on this theory, Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 34-36, 260-269; Dods, The Bible, pp. 107-118. Hooker says, Serm. V. § 4, that the language of the prophets was "uttered syllable by syllable as the spirit put it into their mouths; no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth give a sound according to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it with skill." The figure of a musical instrument, played upon by the Spirit, is found in patristic writings. Westcott says, always with a suspicion of heresy in their use: Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, App. B, § ii. 4. The view was popular among post-reformation writers, especially the Calvinists, but is rarely urged now except in modified forms. Connected with such a view is St. Augustine's belief that Hebrew was the original language, which was allowed to be preserved by the chosen race because it did not participate in the guilt of Babel: De Civ. Dei, xvi. 11; xviii. 39. An other and related view, frequently found in ancient literature, was that prophecy involved an abnormal condition in the prophet — trance, ecstasy, dreaming, and the like. See Sanday, op.cit.,pp. 129-133. THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 203 apt to insist that only the original text of each book has authority; and that, if it could be recovered, the writers would be found to have been inerrant in every1 subject to which they refer, including profane history and natural science. They are also disposed to treat all narratives that are not ostensibly aUegorical as strictly historical, and as closing such questions as the order and method of creation, the antiquity of man, the ex tent of the deluge, etc.1 Dealing with these coroUaries of the verbal theory first, we maintain that it is both unnecessary and peril ous to base the authority of our Bible upon its agree ment with the original text. To do so is to substitute a priori dogmatism for a patient study of the facts. These prove clearly enough that we are unable to recover the original text of many parts of Scripture; so that, unless we may accept the authority of the Church to determine that what we have is the Word of God, we have no divinely inspired Scripture. The only Word of God written which concerns us vitally 1 The belief in this kind of inerrancy of Holy Scripture is not confined to defenders of the verbal theory, however, but is found in perhaps a majority of older writers who believed in plenary inspira tion and touched upon the subject. But nothing like ecumenical authority can be claimed for it. St. Augustine says of the Canonical Books, " I most firmly believe that none of their authors ever fell into error in writing them; that if I meet with anything in those books which seems to me to be at variance with the truth, I do not doubt but that either my copy of that book is faulty, or that the translation of it which I am using has missed the sense, or that I myself have failed to understand the true meaning of the writer." Epis. ad Hieron, 82. 204 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY is that which is preserved in the texts and versions which we actually possess; and, as we have seen else where, its authority is guaranteed to us by the Spirit- guided Church. The same mistake of substituting a priori assump tion for investigation of the phenomena of Scripture itself accounts for the contention that divine inspira tion must have made the sacred writers inerrant in every respect, and that the narratives of the Bible, in their original text, should be taken as closing certain historical and scientific questions.1 The correctness of the verbal theory, as is the case with other theories, depends wholly upon its agree ment with the phenomena of the Scriptures. It is true that we have not the precise original texts, but the alterations that these texts have undergone have not revolutionized their literary pecuHarities, and we have abundant data with which to test the theory. The conclusion forced upon us is that it is inade quate, and does not agree with aU the facts. There is sufficient evidence that some of the language of the Scriptures was, in effect at least, not chosen by man, but by God Himself. We need give but one example — the Decalogue. Many others might be given. But it is practicaUy impossible to make the verbal theory agree with multitudinous traces of human and indi vidual peculiarities of Hterary style and vocabulary that are found in every part of Scripture — pecuHarities, for • We treat more fully of the inerrancy of the sacred writers in ch. vii. §§ 5, 6. THEORD2S OF INSPHIATION 205 instance, that enable us to estabhsh a common author ship for the epistles of St. Paul, and to discover the probable dates and sources of many books and passages of the Scriptures. The human factors have left their traces everywhere, and these traces cannot be treated by reasonable scholars as whoUy the result of divine dictation. In any case, it is certain that, if God chose the very words of the original texts of Scripture through out, those originals have not been accurately pre served for our use. It should be clear that this theory rests upon the a priori assumption that an inspired Uterature must reveal no traces of human imperfection. We have no right to insist upon such an assumption. The facts must determine our views, and they are fatal to the assump tion in question. If it were true, we should be forced to conclude that our existing Bible, the only one available, is a somewhat mutUated and humanized production, more calculated to mislead on account of its lofty claim than to afford secure warrant for an accurate faith. § n. {b) The second theory is that the inspiration of the sacred writers extends only to the doctrinal and moral res et sententias, or the spiritual subject-matter. The writers were either so iUuminated positively, or so restrained negatively, that they feU into no error in their prophetic or doctrinal teaching. But they were left free in other respects.1 1 Held by Paley, Dollinger, and many German writers. It is criticised by Dods, The Bible, pp. 121-123. Some Roman Catholic writers have adopted it: Newman, Nineteenth Century, Feb. 1884; 206 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY It must be acknowledged that if the writers were inspired at aU, to that degree their spiritual teaching must have been determined and controlled by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this theory permits us to do justice to the human factor, without hindering us from acknowledging that certain words and phrases may have been primarily of divine choice, such as were necessarily bound up with true doctrine, and such as constituted some specific message from God. But the theory cannot be apphed to aU the facts. Inspiration is not confined in its purpose to divine revelation. Many passages of Scripture contain no spiritual teaching from God whatever, but record events, ideals, and practices that are not invariably true or righteous. Such portions indeed subserve in various ways the general and edifying purpose for which the Scriptures are given to us, but only when taken in right relation to the rest of the Canon.1 The immediate purpose for which their original writers were moved to produce them was not apparently doctrinal. In brief, the theory accords with some of the facts, but is wholly inadequate as a general theory of inspiration. § 12. (c) A third theory denies that the inspiration Di Bartolo, Criteres Theologiques, pp. 254 et seq. See Tanquerey, De Fontibus Theol, § 51. The phrase res et sententias is conventional among the Latin writers. •The Book of Judges illustrates this contention. The purpose of its divine preservation and sanction seems to be that we should be able to consider a certain stage in the long process of Israel's educa tion by God — certainly not that we should accept all its teachings as perfect and final. THE0RD3S OF INSPIRATION 207 of the sacred writers differs in kind from that of many non-bibUcal writers, who, it is said, display a spiritual wisdom and insight which seems to be due to the same cause as is that which is exhibited in Holy Scripture. Those who intend by such a contention to indicate the method of inspiration of the sacred writers mean, of course, that it was not supernatural in the usual sense of that term; but simply an unusual natural genius in rehgion, or the result of natural conditions and cir cumstances calculated to produce men of lofty spiritual insight.1 Such a view is essentially rationalistic, and signifies an absolute rejection of the Christian doctrine of bibhcal inspiration and authority. It cannot be considered seriously by cathoUc behevers. But certain writers appear to mean by the conten tion in question simply that we need not consider super natural inspiration to be confined to the writers of Holy Scripture. Just as many are wont to attribute to the assistance of the Spirit such graces as are displayed by those who are outside the covenant of promise, so, it may be urged, we are at liberty to account for the lofty spiritual quality of much non-biblical literature by recognizing its supernatural inspiration.2 1 Held by Morell and F. W. Newman in England, and by Theodore Parker in America; also by unitarian and "liberal" writers generally. See A. H. Strong, Doc. of God, pp. 202-204; Lee, Inspiration, App. C. III. pp. 405-408. The view is maintained by Reville, in Liberal Christianity, pp. 28-32. 2 So apparently Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 126-128; Gore, Creed of the Christian, p. 68. It is to be remembered in this connection that 208 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY This is not, properly speaking, a theory of the sacred writers' inspiration at all, since it does not undertake to define the method of such inspiration. CathoUc writers whose orthodoxy is above suspicion have be- Ueved in the genuineness of mediaeval and modern revelations.1 The Alexandrian fathers believed that certain pagan philosophers were divinely guided.2 But none the less, to use the term inspiration in such connections, and to deny without qualification the uniqueness of biblical inspiration, is misleading, and apt to involve serious error in doctrine. No doubt it is permissible to think that the respective manners in which the Holy Spirit has assisted biblical writers on the one hand, and non-bibUcal writers on the other, do not differ in kind.3 But His assistance to bibUcal writers was none the less unique in purpose and result, and this accounts for the restriction of the term in spiration in theological appUcation to the Bible and its writers. Non-biblical writers were not inspired for inspiration was claimed by the apostolic fathers: Clement Rom., ad Cor., lix. i; lxiii. 2; Ignatius, ad Philad, vii. 1. Sanday says, "They represent . . . survival or overflow of the consciousness which is so strong in the authors of the Canonical Books of both Testaments": Inspiration, p. 386. Cf. A. H. Strong's criticism, Doc. of God, pp. 204-208, on "the Illumination Theory," which ex hibits a view that is very nearly equivalent to this. 1 Cf. above, p. 64, note 2. 2 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, p. 58, note. 3 The Church has not defined the manner in either case. The question is therefore an open one, provided our conclusions are con sistent with her teaching as to the supernatural quality of biblical inspiration and the peculiar divine authority of Scripture. THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 209 authoritative ends, and their writings are to be accepted, if at all, on their merits only. They may not be treated as the Word of God. The same Umitation attends private revelations, supposing them to be genuine. Some of them, for instance, have received papal ap proval. But this approval does not, even in the Roman Church, place them on a level with Scripture, or give them binding authority. It means only that their content is recognized to be consistent with the faith. In short they are approved on their merits simply. The sum of the matter is that we ought to avoid a terminology which is novel and confusing, and which tends to obscure the unique purpose and result of the inspiration of the sacred writers, and the pecuhar divine authority of the Scriptures. § 13. {d) Certain parts of Scripture show traces of an inspiration of selection.1 It is widely acknowledged, for example, that the Book of Genesis contains docu ments that are more ancient than their biblical con text.2 No doubt this material was purged of pagan 1 The late Canon Liddon employed this phrase in a university sermon entitled, The Inspiration of Selection. Cf. Watson, Inspira tion, pp. 83-85; Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 420-423. 2 Liddon says, in the sermon above referred to, "And thus we are led to notice a feature common both to the Old and New Testaments — the startling presence of what may at first sight appear to be foreign elements in the Sacred Book. The early history of Genesis may suggest traditions which belonged to ancient pagan peoples living in the great Mesopotamian plain; the original text of its early genealogies may lie buried ... at Kirjath-Sepher, or elsewhere; . . . its later literature may betray affinities — however we explain them *5 210 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY ideas, and thus fitted for its sacred use.1 If an existing document proved to be suitable to fill out bibUcal narratives, or in any other manner to subserve the purposes of bibUcal inspiration, it may have been in corporated into Scripture as it stood. If so, it was divine inspiration that suggested and warranted its incorporation. Neither the doctrine of inspiration nor the indications of Scripture itself require us to Hmit the divine impulse by which holy men of old were moved to original composition. Compilation, editing, and selecting may be included. In any case, the result of the Uterary work of these holy men, whether in com position or selection, received divine authority and con stitutes the Word of God. It should not be overlooked in this connection that the spiritual value and meaning of certain portions of Scripture may depend upon their being in the Canon, — with Persian forms of thought . . . What they really show is that the inspiration which dictated its [the Jewish Religion's] worship and its sacred records was largely an inspiration of selection." 1 Liddon says, " One work of the Holy Spirit is to collect these outlying and — may I say it? — less regular creations of the Divine Mind; it is to disinter the gems that lie hidden beneath the accumu lated soil of ages; it is to bring to a focus the rays of light scattered throughout heathendom, and to exhibit their place in the true self- revelation of God. For if the Holy Spirit thus selects materials from imperfect or false systems, He does not thereby sanction these sys tems as a whole, or even imply that those portions of them which He does not employ are after the mind of God." We may well add, in similar terms, If the Holy Spirit selects materials from pagan myths, He does not thereby sanction these myths as a whole or entitle us to reckon what is thus selected as re taining the nature and level of myth in its new and sacred context. THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 211 and thus related to a divinely inspired context. The Book of Ruth, when isolated from Scripture, might easily be reckoned as merely human history, whereas its place in the Bible gives it a significant bearing on the Incarnation.1 Other illustrations might be given of the principle that, if any Hterature became part of the Word of God by its divine selection and consequent incorporation into the sacred Canon, rather than by supernatural prompting and assistance afforded to the original writer, such Hterature must have assumed a richer and divine significance, due to its new setting and place in the Sacred Scriptures.2 This change of connec tion and deepening of meaning would make the incor porated matter truly and properly the Word of God. § 14. (e) The dynamic theory emphasizes and de fines in modern terms the catholic doctrine that a superhuman factor has been involved in the produc tion of Holy Scripture.3 It is sometimes pressed in a sense that cannot be verified by a study of Scripture itself, and is not required by catholic teaching. This is the case when it is maintained that nothing is con tained in Scripture which was not written in its original 1 We do not mean to assert that the Book of Ruth was not inspired in its original production. We are simply indicating a tenable sup position, that its inspiration may be that of selection. 2 This deepening of meaning bears on mystical interpretation, which is discussed in ch. vii. § 15. 3 The dynamic theory is maintained by Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 34-42; Lee, Inspiration, Lee. IV. (who says that it should be supplemented by distinguishing between revelation and inspiration); A. H. Strong, Doc. of God, pp. 211, 212, and numer ous conservative writers. 212 BD3LICAL AUTHORITY form with special assistance. As we have seen, the sacred writers in some instances incorporated existing documents, of purely natural origin, apparently; and it is a tenable view that whole books derive their spirit ual value and meaning from this incorporation, rather than from supernatural assistance in their original com position. But if we understand by the production of Scripture the selection of existing documents, as well as the writing of prophetic literature, we may not deny the truth which the dynamic theory formulates, that all the Scriptures owe their making, in the form and connection in which they are given us, to the moving, enabling, and guiding power of the Holy Spirit, as well as to the work of their human authors and editors. The word "dynamic" differentiates catholic doc trine from the hmited theories which we have con sidered. The Holy Spirit employed human agents, illuminating their minds so far as the end in view re quired, and enabling them to write, select, and edit in a manner suited to the immediate divine purpose in each case.1 Thus the human agent wrote in his own 1 St. Augustine writes, "The wisdom of God . . . insinuates itself into holy souls, and makes them the friends of God and His prophets, and noiselessly informs them of His works. They are taught also by the angels of God, who always behold the face of the Father, and announce His will to whom it befits." De Civ. Dei, XI. 4. Words worth describes inspiration as a transfiguration by which the writers were elevated above their uninspired level by the power of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration, pp. 5, 6. Tanquerey, De Fontibus Theol., § 53, cites the encyclical of Leo XIII. (Providentissimus, Nov. 18, 1893), "Nam supernaturali ipse virtute ila eos ad scribendum ex- cilavit et movit, ita scribentibus astitit. ut ea omnia eaque sola qua? THEORIES OF INSPIRATION 213 characteristic manner, but often with a spiritual force and pregnancy of meaning that made the result glori ous forever, and which cannot be accounted for by his purely natural capacity. No unassisted writer, for instance, could have written certain chapters of the Book of Isaiah, or of the Epistle to the Ephesians. This theory leaves open the question as to the degree of divine assistance in each case, and ought not to re quire us to discover unmistakable traces of super natural assistance in every part of Scripture. It also leaves us free to accept unreservedly the cathoUc doc trine that the resulting Bible has divine and equal authority throughout; provided we avoid the error of grounding that authority in human authorships, or in the particular degrees of assistance afforded to the several sacred writers, or in the edifying value which we discover in the Scriptures considered separately; also provided we distinguish, so far as we can, the Hmited and spiritual ends for which each Scripture appears to be divinely inspired. § 15. The conclusion to which the facts seem to point is in accordance with what is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews,1 with reference to the Old Testament prophets. The Holy Ghost spake in them not only "in many portions," but also "in many manners"; ipse juberet, et recte mente conciperent, et fideliter conscribere vellent, et apte infallibili veritate exprimerent: secus, non ipse esset auctor sacrae Scripturae universe." He proceeds to distinguish three requirements of inspiration: (a) moving of the will to write; (b) Ulumination of the writer's mind; (c) assistance in writing. » Heb. i. 1. 214 BIBLICAL AUTHORITY — manners too various, and often too mysterious, to be formulated adequately in a general theory.1 At all events, two precious truths are entirely un affected by theories as to the method of inspiration of the sacred writers: viz., plenary inspiration, or the divine authority, of the existing Sacred Scriptures in all their parts; and the inerrancy of the Bible in its inspired purport. 1 Cf. Andrewes, Works, Vol. I. pp. 104, 105 (Ang.-Cath. Lib.); Gore, Creed of the Christian, pp. 70-73. CHAPTER VII CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION I. Criticism § i. The right and value of scholarly criticism of Holy Scripture cannot reasonably be gainsaid. There are indeed some bibhcal critics whose rationalistic pre suppositions vitiate their methods and reduce the weight of their conclusions. But no one who believes in the seU-manifesting power of truth need fear the results of the searching scrutiny of the human elements and factors of the Scriptures which is now being carried on in many lands. Time and enhghtened judgment are certain to discredit rationahstic theories, and the Church wiU in the end profit by the labours even of rationahstic critics, without being led astray by their vagaries. At aU events, if the Sacred Scriptures can not stand the test to which they are being put in our day, they are not what we beHeve them to be — the Word of God. We may, in such case, be thankful to have so serious an error corrected. But this belief is not an error, and its truth will grow more and more clear as criticism becomes more searching and true. The previous chapter ought to have made it clear that the following presuppositions will govern our con sideration of the subject before us: 215 2l6 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION (a) The Bible, as it is substantially contained in the versions which have gained wide use among orthodox Christians,1 is the Word of God, having God for its principal Author, and possessing divine authority in all its parts. (6) Holy Scripture, in its inspired purport, rightly understood, wUl be found to be infaUible and inerrant in every case; and no part of Scripture is lacking in such purport, whatever human limitations it may also exhibit. (c) The authentication of the Word of God pertains to the Spirit-guided CathoUc Church, and is not to be confused with questions of human authorship. {d) Whatever may have been the method of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the human authors and editors of the Scriptures,, the process of producing the Bible was supernatural, in the proper sense of that term, and was absolutely unique in its purpose and result. That is, biblical inspiration alone has produced a Uterature having divine authority. (e) The divine factor in the production of Scripture must have influenced to some extent the choice of language, and this should be allowed for in Uterary criticism. (/) The human factor was not suppressed. The method of inspiration was not mechanical. Accord- 1 These versions, as is well known, cannot be harmonized in all their details, and some of their mutual inconsistencies affect the doc trinal exegesis of particular passages. But these variations, it can be shown, leave unaffected the fact that the general and spiritual teaching of the versions in question is essentially the same. CRITICISM 217 ingly, human pecuHarities of style and method, and human limitations, appear in Scripture. § 2. It is not our task to pass judgment upon what are caUed the results of modern criticism, except so far as they determine theological conceptions. More over, the work of modern critics is as yet incomplete, and the time has not arrived for a final estimate of results. It is a time for patient and courageous waiting. BibUcal criticism is nothing else than an exact and analytical study of the Scriptures, in the light of all relevant knowledge, for the purpose of testing and, if necessary, correcting existing views concerning them. It may be divided into (a) textual criticism, often caUed "lower," which is concerned with recovering the pre cise originals of the various parts of the Bible; (6) Uterary criticism, also caUed "higher," which investi gates the dates, authorships,, and, in some instances, the composite nature of the books of Scripture; (c) his torical and {d) scientific criticism, which test the accu racy of the narratives and statements of fact that faU within the sphere of historical and physical sciences; (e) doctrinal and (/) moral criticism, which examine the credibility and divine source of the spiritual teach ing and ethical ideals of the sacred writers. The right to pursue such studies ought not to be disputed. The fact that Holy Scripture is given to us as possessing divine authority does not nullify the privUege and obhgation of verifying the claim, and of investigating every phenomenon of the Scriptures that 218 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION may throw Hght upon the methods of divine inspira tion and upon the relations between the divine and human factors in the production of the Bible. A Christianity that is afraid of scholarship, or of a searching scrutiny of its authoritative documents, is not worthy of the name and is not cathohc. The fact is that, in the long run, criticism must vindicate whatever is true; so that, unless our rehgion is false, it must prove a most serviceable handmaid of cathoUc theology.1 § 3. (a) The task of textual criticism is twofold : to ascertain as exactly as possible the original text of each several passage in Scripture; and to discover what has been interpolated by other hands.2 In fulfilling this task critics collate and compare ancient manuscripts; take note of early versions, and patristic quotations; and examine Hturgical and other ecclesiastical documents which are likely to pre- 1 See Watson, Inspiration, pp. 2-8. He calls attention to the fact that modern critics have advantages that were lacking to the best scholars of the past. They enjoy (a) a rich heritage of experience in biblical study; (b) possibilities of co-operation between scholars of many lands previously non-existent; (c) new knowledge of the ancient world. To these advantages may be added (d) an immensely en larged apparatus criticus; (e) richer acquaintance with the religions of the Asiatic and Egyptian peoples; (/) more accurate knowledge of ancient languages. There are still, however, many gaps in biblical knowledge. 2 Among useful works and essays to consult on textual criticism are Weir, Short Hist, of the Heb. Text of the Old Test.; Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. vv. "Text of the Old Test.," "Text of the New Test.," and "Textual Criticism of the New Test."; Kenyon, Hand- took lo the Textual Criticism of the New Test.; Lake, The Text of the CRITICISM 219 serve ancient readings. The value of the data thus considered is, of course, exceedingly unequal, and critics have to exercise the most discriminating care. Many baffling problems are encountered, and con jecture must often be depended upon where certainty is unobtainable. No critical text can be expected to secure a universal acceptance of scholars for all of its readings; and the variations which remain after critics have done their best are numerous. Stated in this way the result seems disappointing and, to some, even alarming. But there is no real ground for discouragement or anxiety. Textual criti cism has shown that we possess in substance what was originaUy produced by the sacred writers. The varia tions of manuscripts, versions, and critical texts are in an overwhelming majority of instances doctrinally non-significant, and tend to corroborate the conten tion that the Church has preserved the written Word with sufficient accuracy to warrant our confidence that what the sacred writers were inspired to pro duce is stiU available for the edification of the faith ful.1 Some of the variations do indeed involve to an im portant degree the theological bearing of particular New Test.; Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism (revised ed.); Vincent, Hist, of the Textual Criticism of the New Test.; Scrivener, Plain Introd. to the Criticism of the New Test. (4th edition). 1 The variations prove the absence of collusion in altering the text, and the substantial agreement of so many independent texts assures us that the substance of the Word of God has been faith fully preserved. 220 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION passages; and a very few important proof texts, so called, are shown to be later interpolations.1 But none of these results really prejudice, or in the shghtest degree modify, the doctrinal teaching of Scripture as a whole; and textual criticism has increased rather than lessened the security with which we can verify cathoUc doctrine by an appeal to the Bible. And it ought not to be forgotten that the mere fact that a given passage is of later origin than the book in which it is found does not deprive it of bibUcal authority, that is, of course, if the Church has really received it as part of canonical Scripture. We may indeed be led to avoid dependence upon such a passage in argument with those who think otherwise; but the faithful ought to consider that that is the Word of God which the Church thus estimates. Textual criticism perhaps merely shows how it became a part of the Bible. The Church is alone competent to remove authorita tively anything from her sacred Canon.2 1 The variations of theological importance are chiefly the follow ing: (a) The concluding twelve verses of St. Mark are generally reckoned to-day as an addition, although ancient; (b) St. John v. 3-4, as to the moving of the water by an angel, is reckoned by the Revisers as not genuine; (c) Acts xx. 28. The word "God," in "The Church of God,' which He purchased with His own blood," is uncertain. Among alternative readings is "Christ"; (d) 1 Tim. iii. 16. "God manifested in the flesh," should according to manu script evidence read either "He who was manifested in the flesh," or "which was," etc.; (e) 1 St. John v. 7-8, of the three heavenly Witnesses, is unsupported by ancient Greek manuscripts. 2 The Church's office of authenticating the Scriptures is treated of in ch. vi. § 6. It may be objected that certain interpolations are of later date than the settlement of the Canon. Of course, if an CRITICISM 221 § 4. (6) The literary criticism of the Bible x has met with much opposition from conservative theologians, partly because those who are expert in that field are beUeved, in many instances, to be controUed in their generalizations by rationahstic presuppositions, and partly because some of their conclusions have been thought to miHtate against the divine authority of the Bible. But, whatever may be our estimate of the presuppositions and conclusions of particular critics or interpolation is clearly post-canonical, its removal is not inconsistent with acceptance of ecclesiastical authority over the text of Scrip ture, even when theological exegesis of the immediate context is involved. 1 The literature of higher criticism is very extensive and is con stantly increasing. We mention but a few titles. Wellhausen's Prolegomena of the History of Israel completed, crystallized, and transmitted to England the view of the Pentateuch that now prevails. Baxter's Sanctuary and Sacrifice is an important reply to Well- hausen, the influence of which was shortened by its fierce tone. Driver's writings, especially Introd. to the Literature of the Old Testament; Isaiah, His Life and Times; Book of Daniel; and Book of Genesis, have had paramount influence in behalf of the modern views of the Old Testament. Modem views are also maintained in W. Robertson Smith's Old Test, in the Jewish Church; Ryle's Holy Scripture and Criticism; and Hastings' Die. of the Bible, s. w. "Hexateuch" (F. H. Woods); "Leviticus" (Harford-Battersby); "Deuteronomy" (Ryle); "Isaiah" (G. A. Smith), iii., ix., x.; and "Daniel" (E. L. Curtis); The Higher Criticism, Three Papers by S. R. Driver and A. F. Kirkpatrick. The best defence of tradi tional views is Orr's Problem of the Old Testament. Other con servative works are Bissell, The Pentateuch; Lex Mosaica, edited by R. V. French; Ellicott, Christus Comprobator; Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch; and Unity of Genesis; Moller, Are the Critics Right?; McKim, Problem of the Pentateuch; Moses and His Recent Critics, edited byT. W. Chambers; Stubbs, Biblical Criticism; Pusey, Lees, on Daniel, etc. 222 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION groups of critics,1 we cannot afford, in the interests of truth, to repudiate the right or deny the value of a truly scientific literary criticism. If critics are con trolled by erroneous presuppositions, their work is to that extent unscientific, but the remedy lies in better science, not in a repudiation of scholarship. Higher criticism is still in its infancy, and some at least of On the Gospels, see R. J. Knowling's fine history of their criticism in Hastings' Die. of Christ, *.v. "Criticism." Godet gives a his tory of criticism of St. Paul's Epistles, in Introd. to St. Paul's Epistles, pp. 20-60. Nash's History of the Higher Criticism of the New Test. is poor. Various Introductions to the New Testament are useful — e.g. those of Scrivener and of Salmon, and Pullan's Books of the New Testament. 1 On the necessity of presuppositions of some kind, and their correct use, see Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vi. §§ 5-7. Among the unsound presuppositions alleged are the follow ing: (a) That immemorial tradition as to literary origins, because of its alleged uncritical nature, may be disregarded in determining upon whose shoulders the burden of proof rests; (b) That no supernatural factor needs to be allowed for in mak ing inferences from the literary peculiarities of Scriptural passages as to their sources and dates; (c) That the religious development of Israel was purely natural, and is to be regarded as conforming wholly to the laws of human development elsewhere discovered; (d) That a purely literary criticism of books many centuries old, and unique in many respects, can warrant the repudiation of ancient traditions and the acceptance of definite contrary con clusions as to the documents contained in the Old Testament, their dates, and their precise respective limits in the sacred text; (e) That the expertness of critics in bringing relevant data to light gives a value to their subsequent generalizations based upon them which must entirely outweigh contrary generalizations made by other men of intelligence and based upon the same data. CRITICISM 223 what are called "results"1 seem Hkely to undergo serious modification. Properly speaking it does not pertain to Dogmatic Theology to pass judgment on the conclusions of higher critics, that is, when these conclusions are kept within the sphere of literary criticism. Their theologi cal inferences touching inspiration, however, are not to be confounded with any possible results of literary criticism, which is concerned wholly with the human factors in the production of Scripture. Such results do indeed afford important data by which to judge of the method of the inspiration of the sacred writers, but scientific conclusions on such a subject require for their successful formulation the equipment of a dogmatic theologian as weU as that of a literary critic. In par ticular it should be clear that the divine authority of the Sacred Canon is neither grounded in nor preju diced by any conclusions that are Hkely to be estabHshed as to the dates, authorships, and Uterary unity or com posite nature of the several books of the Bible. It is the divine sanction of the completed Scriptures that Many critics who have abandoned traditional views would repu diate some or all of the above presuppositions, when brought to their attention. But it is quite possible that they underestimate the ex tent to which the plausibility of their own views is dependent upon such presuppositions. 1 We need not suppose that every critic considers what he calls "results" to be final. They are usually adopted simply as the best working hypothesis for the time being, subject to possible modifica tion with wider study. The fallacy lies often in thinking that a tentative hypothesis can outweigh and discredit universal tradition. Only positive and conclusive evidence can do this. 224 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION estabUshes their authority;1 and that sanction is authenticated to us by the CathoHc Church, and on grounds that are spirituaUy wider than literary criti cism can successfully impugn. Our conclusion is that Dogmatic Theology should rejoice in the rise of a truly scientific Uterary criticism of Holy Scripture; and, in treating of the methods employed by the Holy Spirit in moving and assisting the sacred writers, should make use of the data which it brings to Hght. But abundant patience is called for; and, just to the extent that a theologian is a genuine scholar, he will be cautious about draw ing hasty inferences from the latest working hypotheses of expert critics. Time is a vital factor in the attain- 1 We ought not to ignore the contention of many weighty theo logians — e.g. Liddon, in the preface to the second edition of his sermon on The Worth of the Old Testament — that our Lord main tained the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and made other assertions that are contradicted by modern critical scholars. In view of his own work on The Kenotic Theory, the writer will not be thought to doubt our Lord's freedom from the possibility of error. The question as to whether He made assertions that have to be reckoned with in the problems of Old Testament literary criticism is exegetical; and does not involve catholic doctrine. The writer cannot discover evidence in the Gospels that Christ made any such categorical assertions on critical matters. He used the only practicable form of speech by which to refer to Old Testament books without dragging in matters extraneous to His purpose. It is not necessary to suppose that He employed a deceitful economy; nor is it necessary to treat His references to the Old Testament as determined in their phrase ology by any other motive than identification for His listeners of the books which He cited, and the narratives to which He alluded. If the writer's exegesis is at fault, and if our Lord did assert or demonstrably intend to imply what modern critics deny, we must CRITICISM 225 ment of permanent results; and the conclusions of experts, based as they are on considerations drawn from a Hmited field of investigation, must stand or faU by their ability to gain and retain the general accept ance of men of intelligence. § 5. (c) Historical and scientific criticism is con cerned with narratives of fact, and with all assertions, obiter dicta, or aUusions that have reference to matters which natural scientists are able successfully to investi gate and put to proof. It is a matter of common knowledge that such criticism has usually resulted in an abandonment of the traditional opinion that no errors of any kind can appear in the Scriptures. That opinion has been thought to be an essential element in the doctrine of plenary inspiration, so essential indeed that its overthrow would nulUfy the doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God in aU its parts, and has God either accept our Lord's teaching or deny His claim to be our Lord and God. But the grounds on which our faith in Jesus Christ is based are so complete that, if such appearance of contradiction should emerge, and if certain critical views should be established as undoubtedly correct, we should necessarily conclude that the exegesis which made our Lord teach for fact what is not fact was mistaken. Our Lord may have been ignorant in His human mind of some things, but He was possessed, in the unity of His Person, of the divine mind as well as the human. That such a Person could teach error is to us absolutely incredible. The question was brought into prominence by Gore, in Lux Mundi, pp. 358-361. The writer's own view is hinted at in his Kenotic Theory, pp. 219, 220; and is maintained by McFadyen, Old Test. Criticism. The view of Liddon is held by Ellicott, Christus Comprobator, chh. iv.-vi. Sanday takes Gore's position, substantially, in The Oracles cf God, ch. viii. 16 226 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION for its principal Author. Naturally the deepest anxiety has been created by the growing behef among thought ful men of every Christian land that the Scriptures do in fact contain many inconsistencies in their narratives which seem incapable of reconcihation, and embody many historical assertions, especiaUy in the early chapters of Genesis, that simply cannot be harmonized with modern historical and scientific knowledge.1 A dilemma has thus been forced upon those who insist that the Word of God written cannot contain erroneous history or science. They must either deny the vaUdity of modern views of ancient history and cosmogony 1 The state of the question as viewed by the generality of modem scholars can be ascertained conveniently in Hastings' Die. of the Bible, s.vv. "Chronology of the Old Test.," "Chronol. of the New Test.," "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," "Flood," "Genesis," "Gospels," "John, Gospel of," "Joshua," "Moses," "Patriarchs," "Tabernacle," etc. Cf. also Driver, Book of Genesis, pp. xxv.-lxi, I9-3S> 5I_6l> 78-80, 99-108, 136-137, 171-173; Watson, Inspiration, ch. xvii.; Dods, The Bible, Lee. V; Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis, chh. i., ii.; Holy Scrip, and CrUicism, ch. v.; Hogarth, Authority and Archaology. The list might be extended greatly. Undoubtedly some of the contentions of these writers are open to grave dispute; but if any of the statements in Scripture alleged to be erroneous are really so, the whole problem is raised. Among modern defenders of the historical accuracy of Scripture — not all maintaining entire inerrancy, however — are Townsend, Adam and Eve; The Story of Jonah; Sayce, Higher CrUicism and the Verdict of the Monuments; Monumental Facts and Higher Critical Fancies; Early Hist, of the Hebrews; Patriarchal Palestine; Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition; Pinches, The Old Test, in the Light of the Historical Records; Boscowen, The Bible and the Monuments; Orr, Problem cf the Old Test., ch. xi.; Pusey, Lees, on Daniel; Rose, Studies on the Gospels; Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Serms. II.-IV., and App. D; Garbett, God's Word Written, ch. vii.-xv.; CRITICISM 227 in toto, or else abandon the divine authority of Holy Scripture.1 Attempts have been made to evade this dilemma; and Roman CathoHc writers have been especially fertile in methods of vindicating the teaching of Leo XIII., that the doctrine of inspiration excludes every formal and positive error on the part of the human writers. Thus it is urged {i) that the inerrancy of Scripture pertains to the original text, and could be proved if we were able to remove aU textual cor ruptions.2 Two repUes have been made; that the errors aUeged, especiaUy in Genesis, are too deeply ingrained in the whole narrative to be accounted for in such a manner;3 and that the inerrancy of a Bible Longridge, in Inspiration and Six Other Papers, ed. by Percival; Lee, Inspiration, Lee. VIII. This list also might be extended. Roman Catholic writers are committed to defend inerrancy, but often, in effect, concede errors of detail. Barry's Tradition of Scripture affords an example; and Tanquerey, De Fontibus Theologicis, §§ 56-58. 1 A mere repudiation of what is called modern knowledge on the subject cannot avail with men at large. Intelligible and sufficient reasons have to be afforded for such repudiation. 2 Referring to the teaching of Clement VI. that the Scriptures "con tain throughout undoubted truth — which refers ... to the manner in which Cain died," Wilhelm and Scannell say, Manual, Vol. I. p. 56, "as the Church guarantees the existing text of Holy Scripture only in matters of faith and morals, it is evident that 'throughout' refers primarily to the original text, and to subsequent texts only in so far as their identity with the original is beyond doubt." See also Longridge, in Inspiration and Six Other Papers, edited by Percival, PP- 37, 3^; Forbes, Thirty-Nine Arts., p. 93. 3 Is it credible, it is asked for instance, that the alleged unhis- torical nature of the narrative of the Deluge, if real, can be removed by restoration of the original text ? 228 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION no longer in our possession is an academic question, an affirmative answer to which cannot rehabilitate the divine authority of the existing Bible, if such authority is dependent upon the inerrancy alleged. {ii) It is urged again that the sacred writers wrote so as to be inteUigible to their contemporaries, using the existing conventions of speech. For example, they describe natural phenomena relatively and according to their appearance, not scientifically, for science was not within the intended scope of their writing. Had they written otherwise, their language would have been enigmatical and would have seemed hopelessly untrue to their contemporaries. They did not treat historical and cosmological matters scientificaUy, for they were not seeking to enlarge scientific knowledge, but to set forth the divine plan and the spiritual significance of history as traditionally preserved.1 The reply to this has been that, while such considerations may account for the errors of statement in Scripture, and justify a 1 St. Augustine points out the danger of talking wildly about scien tific matters on the alleged authority of Holy Scripture. De Gen. ad Lit., i. 39. Hooker deprecates attributing too much to Scripture. Eccles. Polity, II. viii. 7. Butler's passage on the point is classic. "The general design of Scripture . . . may be said to be, to give us an account of the world, in this one single view, — as God's world: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all other books, . . . except such as are copied from it." Analogy, Pt. II. ch. vii. Pusey, in Unscience, not Science, Adverse to Faith, approvingly quotes Peter Lombard, Sentent., II. dist. 23: "Man, by sinning, lost not the knowl edge [of natural things] nor how to provide things necessary for his being. And therefore in Scripture man is not instructed in these things, but in the knowledge of the soul which by sinning he had lost." CRITICISM 229 method of inspiration which permitted existing notions of mundane events to remain uncorrected,1 they do not refute the modern view that errors do appear in Scrip ture when it is treated from the point of view of his torical and physical science.2 {iii) Then there is the resort to allegorical interpreta tion. If a bibUcal narrative is considered by exegetes to be out of correspondence with the facts, they maintain that God has not given it to us as a narrative of fact at aU, but as a symboUc vehicle of spiritual truth.3 The Eden narrative has been treated in this way by many cathohc writers. It is answered to this that, whatever may have been the divine purpose in making such narra tives a part of the written Word,4 it is impossible for one who reads the early narratives of Genesis intelUgently to avoid the conclusion that the human writer or writers conceived themselves to be giving narratives of fact, for there is no trace of any other design on their part.6 1 It is a truism of catholic theology that necessary doctrine in cludes only the contents of a revealed and saving faith, and has nothing to do with the settlement of extraneous historical and scien tific questions. It follows that when an a priori and doubtful theory of the method of inspiration causes us to insist on the necessity of accepting every historical and cosmological statement of the sacred writers, we violate the catholic rule of faith, as well as bring the Church's dogmatic office into disrepute. 2 It needs to be emphasized, of course, that such a point of view is not the divine or biblical point of view; so that such errors do not affect the authority of Scripture in its biblical purport at all. 3 Origen carried the allegorical method to an extreme. 4 The biblical purpose and meaning are inerrant in any case, for God cannot err. ¦ To acknowledge this does not stultify the belief that the divine 230 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION (iv) FinaUy, there is the plea, somewhat akin to the above, that we have need to remember that God can inspire different types of literary production — drama, poetry, edifying tales, and even myths — while purging out the pagan elements that are found in correspond ing Hteratures of other ancient races. The word myth has a suspicious connotation,1 and usuaUy gives place to some euphemism. The point urged is that we must not treat every ancient narrative that exhibits the appearance of history as if it were historical in the modern sense. The boundary Hne between history and other types of Uterature among the ancients was meaning of such narratives is richer, and is to be ascertained by other than merely literal interpretation, after the precedent estab lished by New Testament writers. This richer meaning transcends what the human writer is likely to have had in mind. Its presence, therefore, does not justify imputing allegorical purpose to the writer. 1 Current discussions of the subject of mythological elements in Scripture are often distressingly abortive and unilluminating. A myth, Baldwin says, Die. of Philos., .>. v. "Myth," is "a story, the spon taneous product of a primitive unreflecting and uncritical conscious ness, in which the forces of nature or other agents are represented in personal or quasi-personal forms, and as performing supernatural or superhuman actions." Myths are usually pagan in their origin and implications, although they need not be so. The proposition which ought to be insisted on is that, granting, as Liddon in effect does, that mythical elements were selected by divine inspiration and incorpo rated in purged forms into Scripture, their mythical source does not compel us to treat them as still on a mythical level. It has come to be realized by theologians that man is what he is, of a higher nature than his alleged progenitors, even if it be true that these progenitors were irrational beasts. So the contents of Scripture are what they are, divinely transfigured documents, even though manufactured out of inferior materials. CRITICISM 231 not clearly drawn.1 The reply has been that there is much truth in this, but the evidence that Genesis was intended by its writers to give a true account of the past is too unmistakable thus to be explained away. Moreover, it is pointed out that New Testament writers indisputably treat some of its statements as historical which modern investigators allege to be unhistorical.2 § 6. If modern knowledge is not wholly at fault — and men have ceased to aUege that geological indica tions were placed in the earth by God to try our faith — we do not see how the contention can be maintained that the Word of God does not and cannot contain his torical and scientific errors on the part of its human writers,3 without abandoning befief in the plenary in spiration and divine authority of our existing Bible. The facts have to be faced. How are we to face them? By examining the aUeged ecumenical authority of the view that the iner rancy of the sacred writers in aU their positive affirma tions must be beUeved by those who accept the divine authority of Holy Scripture in aU its parts. For our part we have never found evidence that such an opinion 1 This line is taken by Barry, Tradition of Scripture, pp. 228-230, a book written under the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Vicar Gen eral of Westminster. See also a suggestive treatment of "The Sym bolism of the Bible," in Sanday's Life cf Christ in Recent Research. 2 For example, portions of the genealogy of Christ, given by St. Luke, iii. 35-38. Cf. also 2 St. Pet. ii. 4-5. These are but isolated samples. 3 The human writers were not God, nor is it generally contended that they were full masters of the divine meaning and use of what they wrote. 232 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION has dogmatic authority,1 and we seem to detect in many modern defenders of it an inarticulate conscious ness of the necessity of qualifying their position. The method of their argument suggests that while intend ing to defend stereotyped formula as to inerrancy they are in fact shifting their ground.2 An opinion may be very general indeed in the Church and very ancient, and yet amount only to a speculative inference from some dogmatic truth, an inference which larger knowledge wiU modify. Thus the view that the several particles contained in our bodies at the moment of death wiU be gathered together into their former places at the resurrection held its own generaUy in the Church until modern science proved 1 It is ancient, and has always commanded very widespread con sent. This is so generally acknowledged that no catena need be given to prove it. But very few patristic writers clearly show their belief that the historical and scientific inerrancy of the sacred writers, as distinguished from the plenary inspiration of Scripture and the infallibility of its divine teaching, is an article of faith. Consensus of opinion must be differentiated in this and other matters from doc trine having the authority of an article of faith. The fact is that the inerrancy of the writers, considered as a distinct proposition, never received widespread and deliberate consideration in the Church until modern investigation forced the question upon the attention of all. 2 Thus Fr. Longridge says "that we are not bound to any particu lar system of chronology, for none is laid down in the Sacred Books." Surely the sacred writers do make chronological assertions in detail, and to say as he does, that beyond the date of Solomon's Temple "we soon get lost in obscurity," is in effect to reject the inerrant authority of chronological statements in earlier narratives, which are abundant and often very clear, although their harmony is one of the problems of criticism. Cf. also Tanquerey, De Fontibus Theologicis, §| 56-58; and Barry, Tradition of Scripture, ch. xi., esp. pp. 224-230. CRITICISM 233 that cannibahsm at least makes such an event impos sible, and that the identity and continuity of the body is not dependent upon the continued numerical same ness of its particles. It has come to be seen that we can maintain the dogma of the "resurrection of the flesh" without retaining the inference so long and so generaUy made from it. SimUarly, modern knowledge compels us to recon sider the alleged necessity that a divinely inspired Bible must contain no errors of statement on the part of its human authors. Such reconsideration causes us to take note more dehberately of the limitations of purpose in divine inspiration, and of the exact meaning of the dogmatic phrase "the Word of God." That phrase does not signify that God is the exclusive Author of Holy Scripture, but the principal Author.1 The analogy of the hypostatic union, helpful as it is in con sidering the part of human factors in producing Scrip ture, has been pressed rashly in one detail. It is urged that just as we may not attribute error to Christ, even in his human mind, so we may not attribute error to the human authors of the written Word of God. It is overlooked that there is no hypostatic union of the 1 As Tanquerey says, De Fontibus Theologicis, § 52, God is "auctor," i.e. causa efficiens principalis. He refers to Newman, Nineteenth Century, February, 1884, p. 188, in support of his language. Further on he says, "Duplex est igitur auctor Scripture: Deus, qui est causa principalis, et sacer scriptor, qui est causa instru- mentalis, non quidem mere mechanica, sed intelligens ac libera." He quotes St. Thomas, Quodlibet, VII. 14, ad 5, "Auctor principalis ... est Spiritus Sanctus," etc. 234 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION divine and human in Scripture. Whereas all the ideas, whether human or divine, that gained utter ance in the words of Christ were the ideas of a divine Person, many of the ideas that are discoverable in Scripture, although they constitute an authoritative framework of the divine teaching, are the ideas of human persons. The method of inspiration, and the Umitations of its purpose, permit them to gain free expression; and they are made to constitute the kind of organic setting of divine teaching which divine wis dom has found suitable. The well-recognized distinction between revelation and inspiration is helpful here. The purpose of in spiration is not invariably revelation. Other pur poses appear, although aU of them are related to the master purpose which dominates the whole. The inspiration of Scripture cannot be tested fairly except when its several parts are interpreted in their organic relations, and in connection with the purpose of inspiration. The non-doctrinal portions, and the un corrected human elements of Scripture, constitute a divinely chosen framework of its spiritual teaching — the context in which God wills that we shall receive and consider it.1 If this context were to be removed, the consequences would be serious, for the revelations in Scripture, many of them fragmentary, cannot be rightly understood except in the Hght of just such 1 As Dr. Gold maintains in his Sacrificial Worship, pp. v., vi., the arrangement of the existing Old Testament, whatever may be the dates of the composition of its several parts, is "not accidental." CRITICISM 235 knowledge of contemporary conditions and beUefs as we gain from considering the very human narratives, types, dramas, mundane allusions characteristic of their age, etc., that God has incorporated into His written Word. There being no hypostatic union between the divine and human factors of Holy Scripture, the analogy of ecclesiastical infallibility wiU more safely determine our convictions in this regard than that of our Lord's two natures. Just as our belief that the Church is infallible in doctrine is not disturbed when we find that her infalUbiUty does not extend to questions of physical science and history, so the presence in Scripture of errors in history and cosmogony need not require us to repudiate the fundamental teaching of the Cathohc Church that the Scriptures are infaUible for their inspired purpose — in their divine purport.1 One more remark ought to be made. If the Scrip tures, considered in their human aspects, were obviously 1 We are glad to be able to cite Dr. Dods as realizing this. Convinced as he is that the sacred writers made many mistakes, he insists on the infaUibihty of the Bible for its purpose. "Its in fallibility must be determined by its purpose. If you say that your watch is infallible, you mean, as a time-keeper; — not that it has a. flawless case, not that it will tell you the day of the month, or predict to-morrow's weather . . . the discrepancies only become dangerous when they are used as a lever to subvert the infallibility of Scripture. And they are frequently thus used by persons who take advantage of the claim of literal infallibility advanced by well- intentioned but inconsiderate persons. ... If it be said, is not all error important where Divine truth and eternal interests are con cerned? we answer, No! else God would have provided for the absence of all error." The Bible, pp. 151 et seq. 236 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION inferior to contemporary Hterature of the same type, and could be discredited by comparison with it, we should be hard pressed, perhaps, to vindicate their lofty claim. But the precise opposite is true. Only when tested by rules that are inappUcable to ancient literature do the human excellence and historical trustworthiness of the Scriptures suffer disparagement. The fact is that no other collection of writings, equaUy ancient, begins to approach the Sacred Scriptures in its value for historical students. Only the laudable habit of associating the Bible with rehgious uses pre vents men generally from realizing this. If archaeology sometimes chaUenges the accuracy of a biblical writer in particulars, its confirmations of the historical value of the Old Testament are numerous and important. Our conclusion is that, except when the exactness of a bibUcal narrative is seen to condition the truth of its divine purport, we are not required to defend the iner rancy of the sacred writers in history and cosmogony in order to maintain without compromise the doctrine of plenary inspiration, as signified by the proposition, "The Bible is the Word of God" and "has God for its prin cipal Author." Without feeling compeUed hastily to accept the latest hypotheses of scientists, we are in a position to wait patiently and without fear for whatever results may be finally established by modem scholars. § 7. (d) Doctrinal and moral criticism remain to be considered. That relatively defective teaching is to be found in the Old Testament cannot be denied intelli gently. And divine authority seems at times to be CRITICISM 237 enlisted in the sanction of ideals and practices which an enhghtened Christian conscience is compelled to reject.1 But any difficulty that is felt on this account may be met by the fact, which a study of Scripture proves, that the method of divine revelation to the Church of God was gradual, and adapted to the require ments of human education. Economy is always ob served in revealing divine truth. That is, revelation is never wasted or given before men are capable of receiving it. Their capacity is subject to the laws of human growth, and involves for its development a long course of educational disciphne, accompanied by gradual teaching of truth. "Line upon line," and "precept upon precept," is the method of such teach ing, with " milk for babes." 2 No other method is possible, in the nature of things, if human nature is to remain human. Moreover, the dulness which sin has caused to the human understanding adds to the slow ness of this process.3 That God orders the method of 1 Our Lord acknowledged the divine authority of the Old Testa ment. St. Matt. v. 17-19; xi. 13, 15; xxii. 29, 32; St. Mark vii. 13; St. Luke xvi. 17, 31; St. John v. 39; x. 35. Yet He taught with equal explicitness that it contained matter which required correction; that it permitted practices contrary to the real mind of God; and that certain of its concessions and requirements were temporary, and to be abolished among His own disciples. St. Matt. v. 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 38-44; xix. 3-9; St. Luke xvi. 16; St. John i. 17. 2 Isa. xxviii. 0-13; Heb. v. 12-14. Cf. Heb. i. ±, "in many por tions." Also St. John xvi. 12. 3 This dulness sometimes becomes an absolute bar to the recep tion of divine instruction, and is then treated as a reason for with holding it. Cf. St. Matt. xiii. 9-15. The phrase "judicial blindness" describes this condition.- 238 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION revelation so as to meet these conditions is not an evi dence of weakness, or of that kind of economy which means deceit, but of wisdom and loving condescension, or, in cases, of protection of truth from desecration.1 But it is involved in this human limitation, and in the progressive method of education and teaching which is demanded, that the earlier stages of revelation should leave much error, both doctrinal and moral, uncorrected and seemingly sanctioned.2 This seeming sanction is in reality nothing more than provisional allowance until higher ideals can be imparted. The errors which are overlooked, and even used, by God, are such as have to be left uncorrected, if the human mind is not to be di verted from the lessons of the hour, and thrown back into confusion and perhaps hopeless revulsion from God. Such considerations help us to meet the difficulties which are caused by the presence of erroneous rehgious conceptions and immoral practices in the Old Testa ment — conceptions and practices which are apparently regarded by the earher writers of Scripture as divinely warranted. For instance, some of the Old Testament writers appear to look upon divine promises and judg ments as having this Hfe for the sole sphere of their 1 Our Lord is commending the divine example to His disciples when He says, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet," etc. St. Matt. vii. 6. 2 For example, the reason why Moses did "command to give a writing of divorcement," contrary to the real mind of God from the beginning, is explained by our Lord to be the hardness of Israel's heart. St. Matt. xix. 3-9. CRITICISM 239 fulfilment. The reaUzation that such a view makes human Hfe a baffling enigma, and obscures divine jus tice, came slowly.1 The Old Testament patriarchs did not suppose that death meant extinction, but their notions of the future life were too vague to reHeve the pressure of Ufe's problems;2 and the Israelites could not be placed suddenly in the larger mental atmosphere of the Christian doctrine of immortality. But truths were unfolded which prepared them to take a wider personal outlook, although in terms adapted to their present Umitations. Immediate and earthly rewards and judgments were made to do the duty of a more adequate conception of human destiny. But the divine judgments imphed personal ideals that demanded a wider sphere than this earthly hfe for their reahzation. In due time the resulting intellectual unrest was met by the intimations of later prophets and the more definite revelation of Christ.3 1 It was the lack of allowance for a future life that made Job's friends take for granted that his present sufferings constituted a proof of some hidden wrong-doing on his part. And this limitation of view is not adequately cleared up by the words attributed to God, or by the outcome of the drama. The unrelieved assertion of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes that "all is vanity" does not read like the words of one who realizes that the value of this life is vindicated by its probationary relation to a future one. 2 The Old Testament conceptions of the future life are set forth by Salmond, Christian Doctrine of ImmortalUy, Bk. II.; and Gayford, Future State, ch. i. Cf. Gibson, Thirty-Nine Articles, vii. (Vol. I. pp. 287-294). 3 The contrast between Old and New Testament teaching on immor tality is punctuated by St. Paul when he tells us that Christ "brought life and incorruption to light through the Gospel." 2 Tim. i. 10. 240 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION The subject of penal justice suggests another illus tration of the divine method. The early idea of such justice prevalent in Israel was exceedingly crude and inadequate, and involved immoral imphcations. Jus tice and power were not sufficiently distinguished, and the right of individuals was submerged in the right of larger and mightier human entities. Rewards and penalties of individual wrong doings were inflicted on families and tribes. The wisdom and patience of God were displayed by His helping the Israelites to outgrow crude notions, rather than by reveahng ideals which they were as yet unable to appreciate. In the meantime the administration of justice was emphasized. Thus jus tice was given a prominent and spiritual place in He brew thought, and existing notions of it began to lay bare their crudeness, the process being helped mightily by the general progress of Israel under divine tutelage. There came a time when it was impossible for a man of God to punish individual crime in the way that Joshua believed himseh to be authorized to punish Achan. "The soul that sinneth it shall die," 1 became the recognized principle of Israel when they had learned the lesson intended from the beginning. Similar lines of thought account for the seeming divine approval of polygamy and concubinage;2 for 1 Josh. vii. 15, 24-26 and Ezek. xviii. 1-28. 2Cf. Exod. xxi. 10 and Deut. xxi. 15-17. The concubinage of Abraham and of Jacob is nowhere rebuked, and the polygamy of various Old Testament saints is seemingly acquiesced in by God. The Mormons have within the memory of living men revived polyg amy on the basis of an appeal to the Old Testament. INTERPRETATION 241 the permission of divorce,1 etc. The hardness of Israel's heart could only be remedied by long-suffering, and waiting for the time of reformation.2 It remains to say that the trend and goal of the divine method constitutes its justification, and the earUer stages of the process as recorded in Scripture are to be interpreted in the hght of this trend and its result. The result, it is hardly necessary to say, is found in the teaching and character of the Word In carnate, summed up in the Christian faith, and in the ideals inculcated by the Catholic Church.3 II. Interpretation § 8. As we have seen, historical Christianity requires us to regard Holy Scripture as one of the two immedi ate sources of the supernatural data of theology. As its spiritual teaching comes from God, this teaching is not subject to correction, although it needs to be rightly understood. Holy Scripture contains, either directly or impliedly, every article of the faith. But these articles are exhibited in various ways, and are imbedded in a long series of sacred narratives, prophe- 1 Deut. xxiv. x, 2. Cf. St. Matt. xix. 3-9. 2 Heb. ix. 10. 3 This whole subject is suggestively treated in Mozley's Ruling Ideas of Early Ages. See also Orr, Problem of the Old Test., ch. xii. Pt. III.; Romanes, Thoughts on Religion, pp. 180-184; Watson, Inspiration, ch. iii.; Temple, Bampton Lees., pp. 136-158. Orr points out that revelation in progress is responsible only for what it newly introduces, not for what survives uncorrected. The fathers treated difficult moral actions, described without comment, as types. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Har., IV. xxxi. 1. 17 242 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION cies, poetical productions, Gospel messages, epistles, apocalypses, etc. The wealth of illustrative matter contained in the Scriptures is very great, and they are serviceable, not only for Dogmatic Theology, but for every branch of sacred learning. § 9. Holy Scripture exhibits to us the supernatural data of theology in a manner analogous to the exhi bition of natural data by the phenomena of nature and secular history. It introduces us, in brief, to a spiritual world in which we are able to study the truths of God in their concrete embodiments, and in a multitude of objective relations. An important task of theologians is to get behind the particulars thus presented, and by generalization to arrive at knowledge of the fundamental truths and principles which they embody. Holy Scripture is a sphere of scientific induction; and no biblical exegete is justified in hoping to understand the Scriptures adequately, or even correctly, who does not apply the inductive method, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and testing every conclusion by all relevant particulars that can be discovered.1 There are, of course, other conditions of success, just as there are in the study of nature. These con ditions include personal capacity and sound presuppo sitions. Just as natural scientists require natural gifts and suitable training for their work, so biblical exe- getes require supernatural gifts and spiritual discipUne, 1 Newman, Arians, ch. ii, § ii, opening paragraph, gives a hint of this. INTERPRETATION 243 for spiritual things are "spiritually investigated" — i a strictly scientific proposition. Furthermore, just as natural scientists have to learn and take into account the results of previous investigation in their chosen fields, and are not able to achieve truly scientific re sults if they fail to do this, so biblical exegetes must come to their work with minds charged with what is already known concerning the truths which Scriptural inductions confirm. They cannot in fact escape pre suppositions, and any attempt to banish them is as unscientific as a natural scientist's attempt would be to cultivate crass ignorance of his science as a pre- Uminary condition of his consideration of its data. Scientists have need, indeed, whether concerned with the natural or with the supernatural, to be conscious of their presuppositions, and to verify them by induc tive study of such data as are available and relevant. They should also be ready to modify or abandon any presuppositions that are found to be inconsistent with indisputable facts. But to disparage presuppositions altogether is to invite failure.2 § 10. (a) The bibhcal exegete, then, begins his work with presuppositions; and, if he is a sound exegete, he wiU assume as his working hypothesis that the ecu menical faith of the Christian Church is a true sum mary of the revelations gradually made through many ages and imbedded in Scripture. No doubt his 1 1 Cor. ii. 14. 2 On the necessity of presuppositions, see Introd. to Dog. Theol., . vi. Pt. II. 1 1 Cor. ii. 14 ch. 244 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION conviction on this point is grounded in the promise that the Spirit who inspired biblical writers also guides the Church into aU the truth; but, apart from such doc trine, he comes to his task with knowledge of the fact that the agreement of Scripture in its funda mental teaching with the historic faith of the Church has been verified in every age, and is as firmly estab lished as any scientific proposition can be established. When taken in their bibhcal context, aU the Scrip tures are concerned, either directly or remotely, with the various elements of the cathohc faith and religion. The catholic faith, therefore, constitutes the key to the meaning of Scripture — the primary rule of its fundamental interpretation. The Bible exhibits the gradual process of revelation of what the Church has received and is guided to teach and define in its vital substance.1 1 Cf. ch. vi. § i, 6 and c, above. Even our Lord consented to have His teaching tested by Scripture. But no Christian will say that the Scriptures may be interpreted otherwise than as agreeing with and embodying His teaching. See Jackson, Works, Bk. III. ch. xx., on this point. That the Church gives and uses the Bible to prove her teaching, see St. Luke i. 4; Acts xvii. 11. But with guidance in its interpretation. Acts viii. 30, 31. Irenaeus, Adv. Har., V. xx. 2, describes the Church as the refuge and paradise wherein to be brought up by nourishment on the Lord's Scriptures. Tertullian, De Prase. Haer., xix., insists that the Scrip tures belong to the Church, not to heretics. Cf. Augustine, De Moribus Redes., lxi. A patristic catena is given by Waterworth, Faith of Catholics, Vol. I. pp. 341-357. The mind of the fathers was crystallized in Canon XIX. of the Quinisext Council, which prescribes "gathering out of Holy Scripture meditations and deter minations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, INTERPRETATION 245 Details of scriptural exegesis require for their investi gation and proper exhibition the work of scholarship, and the exercise of private judgment. The Church does not undertake to make such labour and judgment unnecessary, or to forbid it. Every bibhcal commen tary worthy of the name is the result of scholarship, and contains many expressions of private judgment for which no ecclesiastical authority can be given. But there is a limit beyond which private judgment may not go, a guiding principle by which scholarship, if it is enhghtened, will be controlled. No passage of Scripture may be interpreted in such wise as to con tradict the Church's faith, for that faith is a summary of the fundamental purport of Scripture, assimilated by the Church under divine and corporate guidance.1 nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers," etc. The Vincentian rule of faith is given ostensibly as a means of determining between conflicting interpretation of Scripture. Comm. ch. ii. On this subject see Field, The Church, Bk. IV., ch. xvi.; Hooker, Eccles. PolUy, II. vii. 3; Thorndike, Prins. of Christian Truth, Bk. I. ch. vi. §§ 1-3; Beveridge, Works, Vol. I. pp. 116 et seq.; Waterland, Works, Vol. I. p. 542; Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. pp. 45-48; Darwell Stone, Christian Church, pp. 365-368; Gore, Creed of the Christian, pp. 61-63; McLaren, Cath. Dogma, ch. x. The last named writer says, pp. 81, 82, "Because written under the authority of the one Lord, by the inspiration of the one Spirit, it contains the one faith of the Church." The Anglican Canon of 1571 requires preachers to draw necessary doctrine from Holy Scripture and from "what the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from the same doctrine." The Lambeth Conference of 1878 declared the faith contained in the Scriptures to be "summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed General Councils." 1 The issue between catholics and protestants here is often mis understood. It does not concern the right of private judgment, 246 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION This suggests what is meant by saying that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture. She teaches the faith which the Scriptures are inspired to embody and iUus trate, and thus she teaches the fundamental meaning of Scripture as a whole. If this controlhng fact is allowed for, a fact that a truth-seeking scholarship may not disregard, the exegete is not at fault in exercising his own scholarly judgment in the interpretation of particular passages of Scripture. The truth is that he must exercise his own judgment, if he arrives at any conclusions. The results of correct scholarship wiU exhibit the degrees and manners in which the several elements of the catholic faith and rehgion have been imbedded in sacred Hterature by the Holy Spirit.1 § n. (b) Another presupposition of bibhcal exegesis is that no passage can be interpreted rightly so as to contradict the divine teaching of other passages of Scripture. One Scripture, therefore, should be inter preted, qua Scripture, in harmony with another.2 which is exercised by all, but the soundness of a judgment that re jects the authority of ecclesiastical dogma. The judgment which accepts and allows for dogma is as truly private judgment as any other; but, as we show elsewhere, it is better advised than one which repudiates dogma. See Bramhall, Works, Vol. I. pp. 49-50; McLaren, Cath. Dogma, ch. xii. •Cf; Jackson, Works, Vol. XII. pp. 175 et seq.; Palmer, The Church, Vol. II. p. 46; Moehler, Symbolism, § 42. 2 Article VII. says, "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ," etc. Art. XX denies that the Church may "so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repug nant to another." Augustine says, "Multum et solide significatur ad Vetus Testamentum timorem potius pertinere, sicut ad Novum INTERPRETATION 247 This canon of interpretation requires discrimination in its appUcation. It has reference to the divine mean ing of Scripture. That conflicting ideals and notions are recorded in Scripture cannot be denied truly. They Ue open to all bibUcal scholars. It is often neces sary to extricate divine teaching from crude forms of thought of the age, which had to be employed as its vehicle, before we can discern its harmony with later and clearer revelations. Illustrations of this have already been given in our treatment of the gradual nature of divine revelation.1 § 12. (c) A third presupposition grows out of the doctrine that God is the principal Author of Holy Scripture. It is that we may not treat the conscious dilectionem, quamquam et in Vetere Novum lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat." Quast. in Exod., 73. Cf. his De Doc. Christ., iii. 28; Irenaeus, Adv. Har.,11. xxvii.; IV. xxvi. 1; Clement Alex., Strom., VII. 16; Athanasius, Contra Arian., IV. 23, 24. The last named says that to separate the Testaments, so that one does not hold both, "is the device of Manichees and Jews, one of whom opposes the Old, the other the New." The Ante-Nicene fathers had to vindicate the Old Testament, and its harmony with the New, against the Gnostics. It is a recognized rule that obscure passages should be interpreted by plainer ones bearing on the same subject. So Augustine, De Doc. Christ., iii. 2. Cf. Bull, Examen Censura, Strict, i. § 2. Re liance on proof texts, divorced from their context, is apt to involve interpretations that fail to agree with the rest of Scripture. The practice is adversely criticised by Athanasius, Ep. ad Serapion, i. 17; Cyril Jerus., Catech., xvi. 24; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V. xiii. 2; Basil, 5. Spir., iii. 5. On the general principle, see Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 45-49; Beveridge, on Art. VII; and Cary's Testimonies to the Thirty- Nine Articles, pp. 121-124, where a patristic catena is given. 1 Cf . § 7 of this chapter. 248 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION intention and meaning of the human authors as neces sarily constituting the full meaning of Holy Scripture. In some instances, no doubt, we underestimate the spiritual understanding and meaning of the writers; 1 but, none the less, the mind of God that they embodied in the Scriptures was a larger mind than they were ca pable of understanding adequately. They wrote more significantly than they knew, and the richer meanings of what they wrote could only become apparent at a later stage in sacred history.2 The task of ascertaining precisely what each human writer was conscious of meaning is, of course, impor tant; for the divine meaning is related to this, and what the writer himself meant to say constitutes the divinely chosen vehicle of what God teaches to those who read each Scripture in the light of later history and fuUer divine revelations. The results of investigation into the human meanings of Holy Scripture constitute what is called "biblical theology." This science takes note of the dates, contemporary conditions, personal circum stances, and other characteristics of the several writers, and seeks to exhibit the precise content and growth of 1 This mistake appears in the habit of depending upon argu ments from silence, as if the several writers "knew nothing" of other aspects of truth than those which are exhibited in their writings. It is this mistake that causes certain rationalistic scholars to regard the New Testament writers as setting forth contradictory conceptions of Christian doctrine and practice. 2 What is called mystical interpretation is concerned with ascer taining the larger and divine meaning of Scripture. We consider the subject in § 15, below. On the inability of the prophets to under stand the full meaning of their own prophecies, see 1 St. Pet. i. 10-12. INTERPRETATION 249 rehgious thought as embodied in the literary products of successive writers and different ages in Israel's history. Such study helps a bibUcal exegete to understand more clearly the human conditions which attended divine teaching and inspired prophecy, and which determined the methods of inspiration. But bibhcal theology becomes positively misleading when taken to exhibit the fuU meaning of Holy Scripture. § 13. The diversity of Scripture, in relation both to Uterary form and to the immediate purposes of its sev eral portions, is very great indeed. Methods of inter pretation, therefore, vary correspondingly. There, can be no inflexible rule.1 Three methods stand out with pecuhar distinctness in the history of bibhcal hermeneu- tics, viz.: the Hteral or grammatical, the tropical or figurative, and the mystical. (a) The literal or grammatical meaning of Scripture comes first. It ought always to be sought, and may not be contradicted or ignored in seeking the figurative and mystical meaning. The divine meaning of Scrip ture is grounded in its letter, even when transcending its grammatical sense. But the grammatical meaning 1 A satisfactory manual of biblical hermeneutics — one which does justice to the mystical method and at the same time does not overlook the requirements of sane scholarship — has yet to be pro duced. Abundant materials are available in both ancient and modern literature. For example, see St. Augustine's discussion of the Rules of Tyconius. in De Doc. Christ., iii. 30-37. The whole work is suggestive. Anglican writers discuss various aspects of the subject: e.g. Field, The Church, Bk. IV. ch. xviii.; Andrews, Pattern of Cat. 250 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION is at times a vehicle of deeper ideas, ideas which in volve for their understanding a wider knowledge of scriptural teaching than the particular passage affords, when considered by itself. So it is that bibhcal scholars who absorb themselves too exclusively in grammatical and critical exegesis miss much of the divinely inspired teaching of Scripture.1 § 14. (b) The tropical method is apphed to such scriptural phrases, passages, and books as were intended by their writers to exhibit figurative meanings. These are usually divided into fables, parables, and allegories.2 The parables of our Lord afford conspicuous ex amples. Their Hteral meaning should be ascertained, Doc, pp. 58-61; Jackson, Works, Bk. VII. chh. xii.-xix.; Waterland, Works, Vol. IV. pp. 151-165, 332, 345; Liddon, Life of Pusey, Vol. I. pp. 411, 412; Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 59-67; Owen, Dog. Theol, ch. ii. § 5. Among a multitude of Roman Catholic discussions may be mentioned Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. § 17; Schouppe, Elem. Theol. Dog., Tract IV. §§ 112- 129; Barry, Tradition of Scrip., chh. xi.-xiv., passim. 1 The ancient school of Antioch erred in this way; and their ex aggerated emphasis on the letter led some of its members into heresy. Their one-sidedness was due partly to reaction from the opposite extreme of Origen and the Alexandrian school. St. John Chrysostom was free from the limitations of the Antiochene school. See Newman, Arians, ch. i. §§ 1-3, and note 1 of App.; Lightfoot, Epis. to Galat., pp. 228-230; Die. of Christian Biog., s. w. "Theodorus of Mopsuestia" and "Diodorus." St. Augustine urges that we should ascertain that meaning which the sacred writer intended. De Doc. Christ., i. 36, 37; and all com petent exegetes take this for granted. 2 See Jewish Dictionary, s. v. "Allegory"; Hastings, Die. of the Bible, s. w. "Allegory " (where a history of allegorical and mystical interpretation is given) and "Parable." INTERPRETATION 251 but no argument is required to vindicate the necessity of going on to ascertain the tropical or figurative sense.1 § 15. (c) There are indications in Scripture itself that some of its purely historical narratives have allegori cal meanings in addition to their human and historical senses.2 Mystical interpretation is concerned with this deeper meaning — a meaning which transcends that of the sacred writers,3 but which was infused by divine inspiration. It is based upon the assumption that the whole course of revelation from the beginning was determined by the Spirit with reference to the result — the faith of the Gospel. The Old Testament. therefore, is treated as foreshadowing what was to come in many portions and in many manners/ although enigmatically. Its fuU meaning could not be understood, except in the Hght of later events and more exphcit revelations.5 The Christian exegete, however, discerns the end in the beginning. He sees that the Law is a pedagogue 8 leading to Christ, and 1 Trench's Notes on the Parables of our Lord afford fine examples of this kind of interpretation. 2 In Psa. lxxviii. the history of Israel is ostensibly summarized as parabolic. St. Paul treats the history of Abraham's two sons allegorically. Gal. iv. 22-31. 3 The fact that the mystical sense transcends the meaning con sciously intended by the sacred writer distinguishes it from the tropical sense. The writer was inspired to write more significantly than either he or his contemporaries understood. 4 Heb. i. 1. 6Cf. 1 St. Pet. i. 10-12; 1 Cor. x. 11. 3 irattayurydt. Gal. iii. 24. 252 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION that aU the Scriptures are somehow concerned with Christ.1 In brief, the mystical method consists simply of reading the earher Scriptures in the hght of later revela tion, as intended by the Holy Spirit to be introductory thereto, and as exhibiting this intention to an enlight ened reader: just as one interprets what he sees in the darkness of night, and guides his steps, with the assistance of knowledge gained by dayhght. Such a method obviously requires care and skill in its employ ment. The aim of sound exegesis is to ascertain the divinely inspired meaning of Scripture. No doubt Scripture suggests to certain minds more than it was designed by the divine Spirit to suggest; and we may profit often by associations of ideas that spring from our own devout fancies rather than from correct exege- * Cf. St. Luke xxiv. 25-27. Note also St. Matthew's frequently repeated phrase, "that it might be fulfilled," often referring to fulfil ments which are not obviously suggested by the Old Testament passages referred to, considered by themselves. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews treats the ancient ritual mystically. See ch. ix. 9; x. 1. In ch. vii. he thus treats the narrative of Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek. Cf. the seventh Art. of Religion, and St. Augustine's famous saying that "as the Old Testament is patent in the New, so the New Testament is latent in the Old." Quast. in Exod., 73. On the whole subject, see Thomdike, Prins. of Christian Truth, Bk. I. ch. xiii., who gives numerous instances from the New Testa ment; Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, chh. v., vi.; Newman, Arians, ch. i. § iii. 3; Liddon, Serm. on The Worth of the Old Testa ment, Pt. Ill; Tracts for the Times, lxxxix.; Lee, Inspiration, pp. 148-157; Westcott, Introd. to the Study of Gospels, pp. 63, 64; Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 402-406; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, pp. 136-141; Watson, Inspiration, pp. 138-144. INTERPRETATION 253 sis. But the real meaning of Scripture should be sought, and our own fancies should be excluded carefuUy from scientific exegesis. The point to be ascertained in each case is, What and how much meaning has divine inspi ration and foreknowledge imparted to this passage ? It is clear that mystical interpretation ought not to stultify the Uteral and grammatical meaning of Scrip ture. And it should not be fanciful, artificial, or far fetched.1 The reasonableness that is to be looked for in divine methods is surely inconsistent with such a treatment of the results of divine inspiration. It is also clear that there is no specific and indis putable means by which to demonstrate the cor rectness of particular interpretations of this kind. 1 St. Augustine adopts the precarious rule that unedifying pas sages of Scripture are to be taken mystically. See, De Doc. Christ., iii. 10 et seq. Origen and his successors resorted to an allegorical interpretation when dealing with narratives that seemed to contain historical errors. The experience of many centuries has taught scholars that such methods do not enable us to ascertain the real meaning of Holy Scripture. See Darwell Stone, Outlines cf Dogma, note 10, on patristic treatments of the accounts of creation and the fall in Genesis. Cf. Salmon, Infallibility, pp. 162-167. The predictive aspect of prophecy has been obscured by uncritical treatment and over precise interpretations. The prophets were not inspired for the purpose of putting men in possession of exact infor mation about the future. They wrote with primary reference to passing circumstances and exigencies. Yet they were inspired to exhibit correctly the laws by which human events are divinely ordered, and thus there is a divinely intended correspondence between what they wrote and later events. This correspondence, however, does not usually lie on the surface. It requires deep study for its correct mastery. See Lee, Inspiration, pp. 183-186, 190-191; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library, pp. 144-147. 254 CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION Accordingly, the value of mystical interpretation, which is very great when reasonably employed, is found especiaUy in the sphere of practical edification and of confirmation of truths elsewhere set forth in direct terms. It does not lend itself to formal and evidential use, except in the very general way of ex hibiting to spiritual minds the unity of all scriptural teaching. One may not expect to settle doctrinal con troversies or prove Christian doctrines by mystical interpretations of Scripture. But, when the faith has once been appropriated by a devout and docile mind, the letter of Scripture be comes transparent, and is seen to be the vehicle of truths, put there by God, which he beyond the discovery of an undisceming exegete, however skilful his analysis may be. A theologian who fails to appropriate this undercurrent of meaning in the Scriptures labours under very serious hmitations.1 1 Bishop Butler says, Analogy, Pt. II. ch. vii., "To say . . . that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them, is evidently saying, that those persons were the original, proper, and sole authors of those books, i.e., that they were not in spired." CHAPTER VIII THE RULE OF FAITH I. Exposition § i. We are now in a position, by way of resume and practical conclusion, to sum up the results of our discussion so far as it determines the rule of faith. By the rule of faith is meant the formal method which ought to be observed in determining what is necessary to be believed for salvation, and what therefore should be treated as the fundamental and unalterable premises of theological science.1 Briefly stated, this rule requires that we should seek to ascertain that which is taught by the Catholic Church as necessary to be beheved for salvation, and is con tained in the Sacred Scriptures; for such doctrine, and such only, constitutes the necessary faith of Christians.2 1 On the rule of faith, see St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, of which a convenient edition, with English translation, is published by Parker & Co., Oxford; Card. Veron, Regula Fidei, a mine of arguments against the later Vatican position; Palmer, The Church, Pt. III.; Gore, Roman Cath. Claims, ch. iv.; Ottley, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 12-40. The present Roman CathoUc position is exhibited in Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Bk. I. ch. v.; and given officially in Concil. Vaticani Decrela, Sess. IV. cap. iv. 2 It needs emphasis that not every legitimate content of Dogmatic Theology is a necessary article of belief. Sound theology is indeed grounded in such articles, but its scientific aim involves the laying 255 256 THE RULE OF FAITH It can be seen that our knowledge of saving doctrine is based upon an acceptance of the authority of both the CathoHc Church and the Bible. These two are neces sarily in agreement, since the teaching of both comes from the same divine source.1 But the manner in which the rule of faith requires us to depend upon the authority of the Church on the one hand, and of Holy Scripture on the other, is somewhat different. The Church is commissioned and guided by God to teach and define the faith. It is from her, therefore, that we learn its precise contents. On the other hand, aU saving truth has by divine inspiration been imbedded in manifold ways in the Scriptures; and by their use we are able to verify, and enrich our hold upon, the truths which the Church teaches and defines. To put the matter summarily, the Church teaches and defines, while the Bible confirms and Ulus- trates, everything that is necessary to be beUeved.2 down of many propositions that have not the certainty of faith. In common with other sciences, Dogmatic Theology is partly specula tive, tentative, and progressive. Failure to realize this accounts for much of the controversy between theological and physical scientists.' 1 Cf. above, ch. iii. § 2, esp. note 1 on p. 68; and ch. vii. § 10. ' Cf. the aphorism, "The Church to teach, the Bible to prove." Salmon, Infallibility, p. 125, gives Dr. Hawkins of Oriel credit for originating the phrase. It is used by Gore, Mission of the Church, Lee. II. i.; and by Ottley, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 12-21. Clement of Alex., in Strom., VII. 16, speaks of the true gnostic, grown old in the Scriptures, and maintaining apostolical and ecclesiastical orthodoxy in doctrine, as living according to the Gospel and dis covering proofs in the law and the prophets. Palmer treats of proof from Scripture as including such deductions as can be shown to ex hibit the real content of biblical teaching. The Church, Pt. III. ch. ii. EXPOSITION 257 Nothing may be held that contradicts cathoUc doc trine, and nothing may be required to be beheved as necessary for salvation that is not contained in the Scriptures. TheoreticaUy either Scripture or ecclesiastical teach ing alone might be thought to be sufficient, but really and practically we need both for our guidance. The Scriptures contain aU that we need to know; but in manners often adapted to conditions that no longer exist, in contexts that require careful consideration, and in language that requires authoritative interpre tation.1 On the other hand, the Church defines with sufficient fulness and precision what is necessary to be beheved, and if technical orthodoxy constituted an adequate apprehension of divine truth, the docile dis ciple of the Church could dispense with any study of Scripture. But mere orthodoxy is not sufficient. The richer knowledge which is required by a believer who familiarizes himself with the manifold teaching of Scripture not only adds needed security to his faith, but enables him to appreciate its fuller significance and bearing. So it is that the Church and Scripture are both necessary factors in the production of a faith which is at once sound and adequate, and neither can safely displace the other or fulfil its function.2 1 Gore, Creed of the Christian, pp. 63-66; Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § i. 3. 2 See Gore, Roman Cath. Claims, ch. iv., who refers to Cyril of Jerus., Catech., iv. 17, 33; v. 12; and Leo., Epis. xxviii. § 1, in support of his emphasis on the need of scriptural study. Anglican and Roman views of the relation between the Church and the Scriptures are 18 258 THE RULE OF FAITH § 2. This rule of faith appears simple enough in its statement, but it is often far from simple in its appU- cation by individuals. The precise teaching of the Church is rendered uncertain to many minds by the vagaries of those who are set to teach the Church's faith, and by the babel of rival Christian sects. And the controversies which are caused by divisions within the Catholic Church increase men's difficulty and uncertainty in ascertaining the Church's ecumenical teaching.1 Moreover, this confusion of doctrine increases im mensely the difficulty of depending solely upon the teaching of Scripture. As St. Vincent of Lerins says,2 "The Scripture being of itself so deep and profound, all men do not understand it in one and the same sense, but divers men diversely, ... so that to one's think ing, so many men, so many opinions almost may be gathered out of it." He proceeds to infer that "it is very necessary for given by Ottley, in Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 28-46. Cf. Wilberforce, Prins. of Church Authority, pp. 43-45. The Roman official language is to be found in the decrees of Trent, Sess. IV.; the Anglican in The Articles of Religion, vi., xx. There is a useful survey of the Roman position, with quotations from the Tridentine and Vatican decrees, in Darwell Stone's Outlines of Dogma, note 41. 1 This difficulty may easily be exaggerated. It is a fact that those who are bent on abiding by the mind of the Catholic Church are at one, the world over, in the necessary articles of saving truth. Usually those who have the most difficulty have not fully submitted to the Church's working system, and sacramental discipline, or else demand too much in the matter of fulness and precision of authorita tive definition. *Comm., ch ii. EXPOSITION 259 the avoiding so great windings and turnings of errors so various, that the line of expounding the prophets and apostles be directed and drawn according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic sense." Thus we are thrown back upon the problem, What is this "ecclesiastical and cathoUc sense"? The answer which ought to be sufficient, and which in practical working has to be accepted by simple folk, is that it is what is taught as necessary to be beUeved by one's pastor, who holds his ministry for the express purpose of teaching officiaUy the Church's mind. Certainly no one should reject his pastor's teaching unless he is competent to test its agreement with the Church's mind, and discovers that it cannot stand such a test. The fact is that a rule is needed by means of which doctrines that are aUeged to be catholic can be brought to the test of their agreement with the real mind of the universal Church, by those who are competent to under take such a task. St. Vincent has formulated this rule in terms that are classic. He says,1 " Within the Catho Uc Church itself we must take great care to hold that which has been beheved everywhere, always and by aU.2 . . And this we shall do if we follow universaUty, antiquity, and consent. We shaU follow universaUty thus, if we acknowledge that one faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world con fesses. We shaU follow antiquity, if we do not recede in any particular from those senses which were plainly 1 Comm., ch. ii. 2 Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus. 26o THE RULE OF FAITH maintained by our holy elders and fathers. We shaU likewise foUow consent, if in this antiquity itself we hold the definitions and opinions of aU, or at all events nearly aU, the priests and doctors together." In modern parlance this means that, in order to verify the cathohcity of any teaching, we should ascer tain whether it is now taught by all the Churches of CathoUc Christendom, whether it has been taught by them from the beginning, and whether it has been maintained by the generahty of representative theolo gians of every cathohc school or type.1 And it is to be observed that this last mark of consent is not found by a mere counting of heads or by reckoning majorities, as if all theologians were equally to be considered, but by inquiring whether the doctrine in question has been dissented from by any significant proportion of representative theologians. The opinions of eccentric individuals, recognized heretics, and schismatical theo logians are, of course, not to be considered. It is also to be observed that the mark of universality is of primary importance, and can be found usually by means of a comparison of the existing formularies and official documents of the various portions of the Catho- 1 If the doctrine in controversy is found to be defined in the catho lic creeds, or in the decrees of faith of the Ecumenical Councils, this fact makes further inquiry unnecessary, of course; for these definitions set forth what the Church herself declares ecumenically to have been held in the Church ubique et semper et ab omnibus. The Ecumenical Councils, in effect, made use of the Vincentian rule in rejecting heresy and in defining the Church's real mind; and the results of their work are authoritative. EXPOSITION 261 he Church. Whatever teaching is discoverable in such documents everywhere wiU also be found to pos sess the marks of antiquity and consent.1 1 It may be urged that Anglicanism owes it origin and nature to the reformation of the sixteenth century; so that the appeal of con sistent Anglicans must necessarily be to the principles of the reforma tion. The premise is not true, unless the term Anglicanism is used in a very superficial sense, as referring to non-essential accidents of eccle siastical arrangements. It can be shown historically that the Ang lican reformation was not the establishment of a new Church, for the ancient Ecclesia Anglicana continued in existence, and preserved the continuity of her doctrine, ministry, worship, and discipline. She merely threw off a foreign allegiance of human origin, and undertook not a revolution of her principles, but a reformation and purging out of what had obscured and corrupted them. The principles which she sought to emphasize, and to which con sistent Anglicans appeal, are happily summarized in the Declara tion on Unity made by the American House of Bishops in 1886, Journal of Gen. Conv., p. 80. An appeal to the reformation should mean an appeal to what that movement was officially and professedly intended to restore and reassert, — not to anything peculiar to the sixteenth century, or to private views of the reformers. The formal principle of the Anglican reformation involved a reassertion of the Vincentian rule. It was a reformation, and so the emphasis was placed on the note of antiquity. This did not mean an appeal to early ages to the exclusion of later ages, but to the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning, conveniently ascertained by consulting the Scriptures, the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and ancient authors. Article VI. asserts the necessity of limiting necessary doctrine to what is read in the Scriptures or can be proved thereby. This is reiterated in Article XX., which, however, affirms the authority of the Church "in Controversies of Faith," i.e. in disputes as to the doctrinal teaching of Scripture. The doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils are summarized and reasserted in the first five Articles. The ancient Creeds are declared to be binding in Article VIII. The reason given, that "they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy 262 THE RULE OF FAITH § 3. The Vincentian rule, above given, is not a rule for discovering, in the first instance, the Church's faith, but for verifying the cathohc authority of doctrines Scripture," is an ecclesiastical judgment; and Article XX. may not be interpreted as conceding to private judgment the right to interpret Scripture contrary to the creeds of the Church. Cf. Pusey, Eireni con, I. pp. 38-41. The Convocation of 157 1, which adopted the Articles in their permanent form, enacted that the clergy are to "teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe, and believe, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old Testament, and the New, and that which the Catholic fathers, and ancient Bishops, have gathered out of that doc trine." Canon xxx. of 1604 witnesses that it was "far . . . from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, . . . and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches," etc. The formal principle of Anglicanism is well defined in the Intro duction to the resolutions of the Pan-Anglican Conference of 1878. This Conference urged the maintenance of "the Faith in its purity and integrity — as taught in the Holy Scriptures, held by the Primitive Church, summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed General Councils." The sum of the matter is that the fun damental principle of the Anglican reformation does not permit us to regard ourselves as independent of the rest of the Catholic Church. An appeal to the reformation involves an appeal to the teaching of the Catholic Church — quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus. For an Anglican catena on the Vincentian rule, see Tracts for the Times, lxxviii.; and Parker's edition of St. Vincent's Comm., App. Among the more important patristic references are Irenasus, Adv. Haer., I. xxii. 1; Tertul., De Prase. Haer., xiii., xiv; Origen, De Prin., i. 4; Clem. Alex., Strom., vii. 15; Augustine, Epis., cxlvii. 34; clxxxvii. 29; exciii. 11. Cf. Bingham, Christian Antiq., X. iii. iv; Die. of Chris tian Biog., s.v. "Faith, Rule of"; Field, The Church, IV. xiv.; Palmer, The Church, Pt. III. ch. iii. pp. 35-36, 58, 59.; McLaren, Catholic Dogma, ch. xv., xvi.; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 167-175; Luckock, After Death, ch. i. EXPOSITION 263 said to be contained in that faith.1 Moreover, it is a rule for scholars, for no others are capable of under taking such verification with success. It is objected, therefore, that, unless some more simple and secure method is available by which ordinary people can assure themselves that they are in possession of the Church's mind, they wiU be left without sure guidance in matters pertaining to their eternal salvation. Roman Catholic writers make use of this argument to support their contention that to accept the ex cathedra defini tions of the Papal See is the only safe and practical rule of faith. This subject has been discussed elsewhere, and it is sufficient at this point to make three remarks. In the first place, the safety of such a rule depends upon the truth of the Vatican claim, that the ex cathedra teaching of the Pope is infalUbly true and invariably exhibits the cathoUc mind. We have given reasons for doubting 1 Inasmuch as the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who dispute the teaching of the existing ecclesiastical authorities, a failure to obtain sufficient data for full verification in the particulars of antiquity and consent ought not to disturb our confidence in receiving what is now taught by every portion of the Catholic Church. Such teaching presumably possesses the marks of an tiquity and consent. The silences of ancient documents and writers do not of themselves prove that the fathers "knew nothing" of, or rejected, the doctrines which we seek to verify. The implicit faith of the ancients was, of course, richer than appears in their explicit phrases. Satisfactory catenas may be unavailable for doc trines that are none the less involved in the general position of the fathers. To prove that they did not hold a given doctrine we must cite from their writings language which is inconsistent with accep tance of it. 264 THE RULE OF FATIH the correctness of such a claim. In the second place, the practical value of such a rule depends upon the possibiUty that ordinary folk should be able to deter mine with certainty what are ex cathedra teachings of the Papal See and what are not.1 Finally, it is an acknowledged fact that many important doctrines of the Church have not been denned ex cathedra by the Roman See. We must be controUed in our view of the rule of faith by the facts, and they require us to acknowledge that men are not altogether relieved by divine arrange ments from the uncertainties that inhere in human dehvery and appropriation of rehgious truth. Yet the catholic system secures that no one who seeks sincerely to submit to the Church's mind, and, as a vital element in such submission, commits himself loyally and faithfuUy to the Church's sacramental hfe and worship, wiU fail to appropriate the true and cathohc faith sufficiently for his eternal welfare. Surely this should prove sufficient; and it is an advantage to souls, rather than a misfortune, that the method by which ordinary men can attain to saving knowledge is also the method by which to grow in grace and virtue. It is a mark of divine wisdom that the system of things which God has appointed in His Church does not permit men to divorce the interests of saving knowl edge and of the spiritual life. The road to the fulness of divine truth in the CathoHc Church is not hard to find, but is available to every sincere disciple of the 1 See above, ch. v. § 18. EXPOSITION 265 Church. In the nature of the case it can be made available to no others. To travel this road it is only necessary to assume a docile attitude towards the Church's divinely appointed agents and instruments of teaching and grace — those agents and those instruments in particular which the believer's providential place in the Church mihtant, and his personal circumstances and capacity, make available. No doubt controversies of faith will arise to trouble the most sincere truth-seekers, but no one who realizes that the burden of proof in such controversies hes always with a dissenting disciple or subordinate party to the controversy is Hkely to be led far astray. Cer tainly a mistake thus incurred will not, of itself, separate him from his Lord. Thus the docile layman will accept the teaching of his duly appointed pastor and teacher until he is possessed of proof, and is able to show, that the pastor has departed from what he was appointed to teach.1 Such proof wiU normally take the form of appeal to the ecclesiastical formularies and other official documents that embody the Church's mind and by which both pastor and laymen are bound. Going higher, no one may dispute or reject the ac credited and formal teaching of the provincial Church to which his obedience is providentially due until, and except so far as, he is competent and able to prove that 1 If a layman has reason to believe that the teaching of his pastor is anti-scriptural, he will have reason to suspect its ecclesiastical warrant, of course. 266 THE RULE OF FAITH such teaching is contrary to the mind and teaching of the CathoHc Church at large. It is the inahenable right and duty of individual beUevers to be guided in their faith by what they are personaUy convinced is the mind of the CathoHc Church, or of the highest ecclesiastical authority whose teaching lies open to their inteUigent consideration. Private judgment is involved here, but it should be concerned with arriving at authoritative ecclesiastical teaching, and ought not to oppose such teaching. Moreover, if any controversy comes to ecclesiastical adjudication, then the docile believer remembers that the "Church hath . . . authority in Controversies of Faith," and is the final judge of her own mind. This principle is assumed in all that we have said touching the task of scholars in verifying current doctrines by means of the Vincentian rule.1 § 4. The Church has a Uving voice.2 That is, she never ceases to teach positively what is necessary to be believed and practised for salvation. She does not, indeed, give dogmatic definitions in response to aU questions put to her by the world or by her own chil dren; nor do the dogmas that she has published define all the truths contained in her saving faith. But she 1 The reader of this volume will recognize that it is also assumed that the teaching of Scripture may not be contradicted by the teach ing of the Church. To ascertain the ecumenical mind of the Church is to ascertain what can be, and must be, capable of being verified by the Scriptures. 2 This subject has been dealt with in another connection in ch. iv. § 7. EXPOSITION 267 has sufficiently defined her mind, in formularies stiU enforced, to protect from fatal error all who are really docile to her teaching and loyal to her sacramental ways.1 No others could be helped by more abundant dogmatizing. New errors may arise, but history shows that they correct themselves in time, among the faith ful, either through their incongruity with ancient dog mas becoming apparent; or through scholarly criticism according to the Vincentian rule, the results of which gradually reach and determine the minds of unschol arly beUevers; or through the practical effect of faith fulness to the Church's working system, which tends ultimately to make every successive vagary appear ahen. Controversies may arise that concern speculative questions for which the Church has no divinely re vealed answer; such, for example, as certain debated points connected with the mysteries of predestination and the present state of the departed. Such con troversies settle themselves by their futiUty becoming clear, and by a cessation of anxiety for their solution. If the Church deals with them, she wiU usually take some method of shelving them, as did the EngUsh Church in the sixteenth century by the use of peace making and non-specific general propositions in her Articles of Religion. The universal Church continues to say the same 1 Palmer, the Church, Vol. II. pp. 79-80, 82, shows that in practice men have to depend on the existing Church and her pastors for spiritual knowledge. 268 THE RULE OF FAITH things in effect; and, in her formal dogmas, to recite the same phrases. In various ways her voice sounds in every age and in every genuine portion of her juris diction. And this living voice is infallible. That is, its teaching can always be depended upon when rightly apprehended. It is for this end — surely an important one — that the Church is made infaUible touching saving truth, that teaching may continue to be given in the world which seekers after the way of eternal hfe can safely trust. But the blessing of an infaUible guide is one thing; the degree of certainty with which faUible men accept her authority, or distinguish her voice in the medley of conflicting voices that are heard in this world, is quite another. Probabihty does not cease to be a very guide of Ufe within the minds of individuals. But surely even an imperfect assurance that the Church is infallible in matters of salvation imposes upon us the solemn duty of accepting her guidance in that regard; and it is God's gracious provision that such trust wiU never be mistaken, but wiU, under the con ditions that attend spiritual knowledge in any case, result in sufficient saving knowledge and life eternal.1 1 Roman Catholic writers and many others, including Salmon, In fallibility of the Church, ch. vi., confuse infallibility in teaching with infallible guidance — i.e. production of infallible certainty in the indi vidual believer. Salmon urges that to accept infallible authority we must be infallibly certain of its infallibility. He assumes everywhere, as do Roman Catholic writers too frequently, that the acceptance of ecclesiastical infallibility precludes any further inquiry or verification of the truth of ecclesiastical teaching. Is not God infallible ? No Christian believer will answer " No." Yet belief in divine infalli bility is not itself infallible, nor does such belief preclude rational ESSENTIALS AND NON-ESSENTIALS 269 II. Essentials and Non-Essentials § 5. The catholic faith consists of the totality of doctrines that are taught by the Catholic Church as necessary to be beheved by such as would be saved, these doctrines being also contained in Holy Scripture. The necessity of behef thus maintained is clear when we consider that this faith has been made known to men on divinely inspired and divinely guided authority, so that a rejection of any one of its doctrines, however unimportant that doctrine may seem to be to the individual, signifies in effect a rejection of divine au thority itself.1 This necessity is also due to the fact that the knowl edge which we derive from the faith affords indispen sable guidance in the way of Hfe, that is, as to the line of conduct and discipline which is essential in order that we may enter upon and enjoy everlasting blessed ness. § 6. We are utterly incompetent to say of any truth which has been divinely made known to us for our salvation that it may be rejected or even neglected without risk of eternal consequences. The contents verification, so far as possible, of what is divinely revealed. Cf. above, ch. i. §§ 14, 18, 19. 1 See Dr. Pusey, Responsibility of the Intellect in Matters of Faith, and a quotation from him in Liddon, Life of Pusey, Vol. IV. pp. 7, 8; Isaac Williams, The Catechism, Vol.1, p. 68; Jackson, Works, Bk. IV. ch. iv; Hammond, Of Fundamentals; McLaren, Catholic Dogma, pp. 48-51; Palmer, The Church, Pt. I. ch. v. A partial orthodoxy 270 THE RULE OF FAITH of the faith transcend our ability to explore them fuUy, and we are therefore incompetent to determine their necessity merely on grounds of human reason. The fact that they have been revealed for our salvation makes a denial of their necessity to that end a repudia tion of divine wisdom. No doubt we are able to discern a difference in the relative importance or centrahty of cathohc dogmas. We can see, for instance, that the truth of the Incar nation occupies a more fundamental position in the faith at large than that of angeHc ministrations. But this difference is not such as to make the former doc trine essential and the latter non-essential. In fact this distinction between essential and non-essential doctrine, as applied to the contents of the faith, is false and misleading.1 We are under the most serious obh gation to accept every truth as essential which we believe to be revealed by God. The point can be illustrated by a comparison between moral obligations. We all recognize a difference in the relative importance of such obligations. It is more subversive of moral principles, for instance, to violate is as absurd in the eyes of liberals as it is deplorable in the eyes of catholic theologians. See Sabatier, Religions of Authority, p. 260; ReVille, Liberal Christianity, pp. 6 (note), 27. Reville says, "Now, as soon as the teaching of a religion is rejected at any single point in the name of reason, the authority of that religion becomes subordinate to the authority of reason." 1 Palmer shows that it is also useless for purposes of argument or of procuring unity. Agreement as to the meaning and application of the phrase "fundamental" cannot be secured. The Church, Vol. I. pp. 122-131. ESSENTIALS AND NON-ESSENTIALS 271 the law against murder than to disregard that against steahng. Yet no thoughtful person believes for a moment that it is not essential to righteousness to re frain from steahng or from any violation of moral principle whatsoever.1 A reflecting Christian should be able to see that it is essential to his possession of a saving faith that he should accept with docile mind all the known contents of divine revelation; and that the fact of their having been revealed should be re garded as estabhshing their importance, whether this importance is perceptible on grounds of reason or not. These considerations involve no specific conclusions touching the judgment and final destiny of those who, through no personal fault, are invincibly ignorant of revealed truths. The teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, as to the condemnation of those who refuse to hold the faith,2 has reference plainly to such 1 What is said in St. James ii. 10, 11 is relevant. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law [i.e. regard it as generally binding], and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, 'Do not commit adultery,' said also, 'Do not kill.' Now if thou commit no adultery, yet, if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." The distinction between mortal and venial sin is valid. But it is a pernicious delusion that any sin, even though rightly termed venial, can be cherished obstinately without becoming mortal. William Law writes with convincing force on the duty of all Christians to aim at entire perfection in righteousness. Serious Call, opening chapters. 2 The Scriptures teach unmistakably that salvation is contingent on the reception of Christ's teaching, quite apart from St. Mark xvi. 16, which is discounted by many as not in the original text. "He that befieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." 272 THE RULE OF FAITH as are afforded opportunities that make them justly accountable for faihng to come to a saving knowledge of its contents. The destiny of the invincibly ignorant is not defined in Scripture or by the Church. The sum of the matter is that knowledge, or reason able opportunity of knowledge, of divinely revealed truth brings with it an inevitable obhgation to accept such truth, and a Habihty to eternal consequences for rejecting it. The only excuse for regarding a rehgious doctrine as non-essential is the possession of sufficient reasons for doubting seriously that it has been revealed ; and one who acknowledges that the Church ''hath authority in Controversies of Faith " ought also to grant that doubts based upon mere private judgment are not legitimate in his case, when they are opposed to the teaching of the CathoHc Church. § 7. Doctrines ought to be received when imposed by sufficient ecclesiastical authority; and obligatory The faith which is necessary for justification is undoubtedly more than mere intellectual belief; but it certainly includes implicit acceptance of all the teaching of Christ. It is the duty of all even to "contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." St. Jude 3. Christians are to be jealous for the doc trine of Christ. St. John says, if any man come and "bring not this teaching, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:" 2 St. John 10; and whatever adjustment of this rule may be required by our changed conditions, it certainly is not fulfilled in its spirit if we receive open heretics into religious fellowship. In brief, trifling with Christian doctrines is treated as wrong-doing in the New Testament. Cf. St. John iii. 18-20, 36; Acts xiii. 46 (and parallel passages); Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4; 1 Tim. vi. 3-5, 20; 2 St. Pet. ii. 1, 2; etc. ESSENTIALS AND NON-ESSENTIALS 273 doctrines may be classified according to the manner in which they are imposed.1 (a) First in rank are those dogmas which have been defined by the authority of the entire Catholic Church in a formal way as necessary to be held by all Christians. These dogmas ought to be held not only in substance but in the terms which the Catholic Church has unitedly employed to define them. The creeds and the decrees of faith adopted by the Ecumenical Councils alone have such authority. (b) Definitions which have been adopted by all parts of the Church, acting separately, have ecumenical authority, if the meaning of the terms employed is the same everywhere, or, when different language is used, if there is an obvious and substantial agreement be tween the various separate definitions. The definitions which teach or imply that the consecrated eucharistic species are truly the Body and Blood of Christ afford an example. In such cases the common doctrine is binding upon all; but the terms employed are binding only in the local portions of the Church which impose them. (c) Doctrines known to be held as of faith every where, always, and by the generahty of cathoUc theo logians, but not defined ecumenically, or in equivalent terms everywhere,2 must be regarded as obhging the •Such classifications are made by Field, The Church, Bk. III. ch. iv.; and Palmer, The Church, Vol. I. pp. 104-108. 2 We should distinguish from these doctrines such opinions as are generally held, but not as articles of the faith. Cf. § 8 (b), below. 19 274 THE RULE OF FAITH consciences of all. They demand explicit faith on the part of those who have become aware of their universal acceptance, although diversity of terminology is permissible when substantial agreement is preserved. The doctrine of man's primitive state is an example. (d) The formal definitions of doctrine imposed by particular Churches, but not adopted universally, should control the explicit faith of those upon whom they are imposed, but do not have such authority in other particular Churches. It is assumed, of course, that these definitions are not known to contradict ecumenical teaching. § 8. Much liberty remains touching terms to be employed and opinions to be held. The Church has not defined aU the contents of saving truth; and many questions arise which are not answered by divine reve lation, and concerning which a difference of opinion is allowable.1 (a) The faithful have the right to refuse the use of particular terms, even when they may be shown to be useful to distinguish truth accurately from error, pro vided they have not been imposed by ecumenical authority or by their own particular Church. The fact remains, however, that terms which have stood the test of very widespread use, and have been found serviceable to an accurate maintenance of the faith, 1 Speculative views are called "pious opinions," in relation to their consistency with the piety of loyal believers, and "dubia," in relation to their uncertainty and non-obligatory nature. Cf. Introd. lo Dog. Theol, ch. viii. §§4, 5. ESSENTIALS AND NON-ESSENTIALS 275 ought not to be disparaged or put aside except for grave reasons. The thoughtful Christian wiU feel bound to use the most widely approved doctrinal language, not merely for his own safety, but also for the sake of unity, so that aU may more obviously "speak the same thing." * But individual liberty and discretion may not be interfered with where the Church has not defined the language which must be accepted.2 (b) Opinions may prevaU very generaUy in the Church without binding individuals to their acceptance, if they have neither been imposed by the Church as necessary to be beheved, nor have been held in the Church as of faith everywhere, always and by the generahty of cathohc theologians. We must distin guish carefuUy between general opinions and ecumeni cal teaching. Only the latter may be insisted upon as defide? (c) The same freedom to differ exists in relation to views which prevail pecuUarly in one's own portion of the Church. Thus no Anglican view, however preva lent, can bind even an Anglican, unless it is clearly 1 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 The term "Sacrament," in its application to other rites than Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, is an instance. The truths con noted by the Latin assertion of seven Sacraments, and the Greek maintenance of seven Mysteries, are, of course, not to be rejected. 3 The patristic theory that our Lord paid a ransom for our souls to the devil, is often cited as a case in point. A more indisputable example is the ancient inference from the doctrine of the resurrection of our bodies, that the particles of matter contained in them at the hour of death will be gathered again in the resurrection. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, p. 164, note. 276 THE RULE OF FAITH and legitimately imposed upon him by proper ecclesias tical authority.1 (d) The views of theological schools or ecclesias tical parties are also lacking in authority over the individual conscience, whatever theological weight they may derive from the learning and spiritual gifts of those who maintain them. No one may be rightly regarded as heretical because of his agreement or dis agreement with school opinions, provided he does not reject any portion of the catholic faith.2 (e) Finally, no binding authority attaches to private opinions, held by individual theologians, even when based upon arguments seemingly sufficient, unless they can be shown to be in reality the teaching of the Church.3 Two general remarks should be added. In the first place, in dealing with obligatory doctrines and non- obhgatory opinions, we have defined their authority solely with reference to ecclesiastical teaching. This is consistent with the conviction, maintained elsewhere, that no doctrine may be imposed as de fide unless it can be proved out of Scripture. The Church is the practical teacher and definer of the faith; and therefore we identify what is de fide by the fact that she teaches it as necessary to be beheved. But, for reasons else where given, we assume throughout that what she teaches is contained in Holy Scripture. 1 The opinion that no one will enjoy the beatific vision prior to the day of judgment is ad rem. 2 The Scotist view, that the Incarnation would have occurred if man had not sinned, illustrates this. 3 St. Anselm's theory of the Atonement is an instance. ESSENTIALS AND NON-ESSENTIALS 277 Our second remark is this. No opinion which may at one time rightly be rejected in the Church can be come by subsequent ecclesiastical action an article of faith. This does not mean that the Church may not impose new phrases in denning her faith, but simply this, that the substantial area of the faith may not be enlarged by the Church. Her dogmatic authority is confined to the sphere of teaching and defining a faith which was revealed to her in pentecostal days.1 1 The belief in the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin was of mediaeval origin. Its imposition as an article of faith by Pious IX. in 1854 was unlawful. This is accentuated by the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest authority among theologians in the Roman schools, rejects the opinion. Summa Theol, III. xxvii. 2. CHAPTER IX THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE I. Legitimate Developments § i. CathoHc doctrine never changes in its own substance, either by addition, by subtraction, or by modification. It was delivered once for aU, and the dogmas by which certain of its contents are defined by the Church ever retain the official meaning with which they were imposed.1 But credal definitions are limited in function. They are not framed for the pur pose of exhibiting the manifold bearings and implica tions of the truths with which they are concerned, but in order to define these truths in their own content. Such definitions are necessary, if the primary verities of rehgion are to be preserved from subversion; but they were not intended to hamper Christian thought, nor have they done so. On the contrary, they have afforded secure premises that at once stimulate the 1 St. Jude 3. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vi. § 15, on the theory that the creeds should be interpreted progressively. The reader will remember that the word " interpret " has two distinct, although related, uses in this connection: (a) to exhibit the exact content and meaning of a creed, considered in itself; (b) to expound a creed in its implications and bearings. When it is said that the interpreta tion of a creed may not be altered, the word is used in the former sense. 278 LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 279 thought of those who accept them and make their thinking true and fruitful.1 They stimulate thought because they are seen to define leading truths, truths that are central, that are related vitaUy to other domains of fact and experience, and that come to connote more and more as human experience widens. The consequence is that, as time goes by, Dogmatic Theology grows richer and more adequate, without ever exhausting the bearings and imphcations of what was originally revealed. The development of doctrine is nothing else than this perpetual increase in the Church's realization and exhibition of the relations of revealed truth to other truth and to human experience. Revealed truth re mains, in its own content and substance, precisely what it was when first delivered to the Church; but it is more adequately appropriated and more richly set forth in relation to successive forms of experience, thought, and language.2 1 Cf. above, ch. iv. § 3 fin. * Newman's treatise on The Development of Christian Doctrine, obviously open to adverse criticism as it is, has primary importance in modern literature on the subject. Mozley, On Development; Palmer, Development and the Conscience; and W. A. Butler, Letters on Development; are among the most important replies to Newman. Blenkinsopp, Doctrine of Development, is a continuation of Newman's line of thought, written twenty-five years later. Among other Anglican treatments of the subject should be mentioned Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 435-438, 448-450; Ch. Hist. Soc. Lees., 2d Series, pp. 83-86; Stanton, Place of Authority, pp. 128-138, 168- 170; and Darwell Stone, The Christian Church, ch. xiv. Stone gives a good historical account of the subject. Roman Catholic writers have taken opposite views. The reac- 280 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE That there is a legitimate development of doctrine was not left for moderns to discover. Its inevitable ness was recognized by St. Vincent of Lerins and by other ancient writers,1 and has been exemplified aU along by a continual growth in the richness of Dogmatic Theology. But the late Cardinal Newman brought the fact into general consideration, and the Darwinian theory of evolution2 has immensely strengthened the conviction that the bearing of credal propositions, and of Scripture itself, is never exhausted, but evolves into a more and more significant theology as the ages roU on. The hints that Newman threw out as an apology for accepting the authority of novel teaching from the tionary position is formulated by Fr. Clarke, Nineteenth Century, Feb. 1900. Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual, Vol. I. § 35; Carson, Reunion Essays, I.; and Dom. Chapman, Bishop Gore and the Cath. Claims, pp. 26-36, follow in Newman's path. More radical and rationalistic positions have been advanced by Mivart, Nineteenth Century, and Fortnightly Review, Jan. 1900; and Loisy, The Gospel and the Church, passim. 1 St. Vincent says, CommonUorium, ch. xxiii., concerning advance ment of religion, " For who is either so envious of men, or hateful of God, who would labour to hinder that? But yet in such sort that it may be truly an increase in faith, but not a change; since this is the nature of an increase, that in themselves severally things grow greater; but of a change, that something be turned, from one thing which it was, to another which it was not. Fitting it is, therefore, that the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, ... as well of one alone, as of the whole Church in general, should by the advance of ages abundantly increase and go forward, but yet for all that, only in Us own kind and nature; that is, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, in the same judgment." Cf. Augustine, in Joan., Tr. xiv. c. 3. n. 5. cited by Liddon, Divinity of our Lord, pp. 435-438. 2 Newman's Development appeared in 1845, Darwin's Origin of the Species in 1859. LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 281 Roman See are seen to have been misapplied by him; but his central thought, that articles of faith grow more practically significant with the development of spiritual experience, is now acknowledged by cathohc and protestant ahke.1 We are not hkely, therefore, to be in disagreement with the more thoughtful when we say that legitimate developments of doctrine may arise from (a) analytical consideration of the origi nal propositions of the faith in the Hght of the Sacred Scriptures; (b) the necessity of framing new and en larged definitions in order to answer the questions which heresies and novel forms of thought and language sug gest; (c) the inevitable impulse to co-ordinate scien- tificaUy and apologeticaUy the various departments of revealed truth both with each other and with increas ing knowledge of the natural order; (d) the necessity of exhibiting the practical bearings of cathohc doctrine on the multiplying problems which mutations and de velopments of civilization and increasing complexity of the Church's experience bring to the front. § 2. (a) It is our duty and privilege to meditate habituaUy and analyticaUy upon revealed truth. And we are caUed upon to search the Scriptures, not only to examine whether these things are so,2 but also to enrich our hold upon what we believe.3 Thus we hold together the truths of our Lord's very 1 Cf. for some thoughtful and suggestive remarks on the law of the evolution of dogma in history, Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp. 20-32. 2 Acts xvii. 11. »Cf. St. Matt. xiii. 51, 52. 282 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE Godhead and of His complete Manhood. A fuU con sideration of these truths brings to Hght a necessary implication contained in them, that our Lord possesses as His own aU the attributes and operations of the divine and the human natures. A realization of this was quickened in the Church by conflict with heresy, and led to an ecumenical recognition and use of the communicatio idiomatum, or predication of divine and human attributes to our Lord's one Person under aU His personal titles, and, in particular, of a twofold will and operation.1 A study of Scripture serves to confirm and iUustrate this developed doctrine. We are there assured that it was the divine Word who became flesh,2 the Lord of glory who was crucified 3 and the Son of Man who was the Son of the Living God,4 and the future Judge of mankind.5 1 The third Ecumenical Council deduced from the verity of our Lord's Manhood and human birth, and from the truth that He is a divine Person, the consequence that God was born of the Blessed Virgin — that she is rightly called Oeorrf/cos, bearer of God. The sixth Council declared that as there are two perfect natures in Christ — the Godhead and the Manhood — He possesses two natural wills and operations in His one Person, the human will being always conformed to the divine. 2 St. John i. 14. 2 1 Cor. ii. 8. Cf. Acts xx. 28: "The Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." It should be noted, however, that some ancient manuscripts throw doubt on the correctness of the reading "of God." * St. Matt. xvi. 13-16. 5 St. Matt. xxv. 31, 32. On the communicatio idiomatum see a condensed but comprehensive note in Bright, St. Leo on the Incarna tion, note 5, pp. 128-132. LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 283 In this and many other particulars, the Church and her theologians have grown in their realization of what is contained and imphed in the original deposit of faith. And the faith has always contained, either exphcitly or by demonstrable implication, whatever we can learn in this world with the certainty of faith con cerning divine mysteries. But the Holy Spirit is ever guiding the Church more completely into the truth.1 This does not mean that essentiaUy new revelations are afforded, but that the Church is continuaUy guided to discern new treasures which in reality have been contained in what she has held from pentecostal days.2 As Westcott has shown, the meaning of Scripture, wherein the faith is embodied in manifold ways, can be ascertained more and more adequately as the ages roU by, and "the latest age has not exhausted the meaning of what was once said." 3 The bald contents of the Church's faith remain forever the same, but the ripeness of her mind grows continuaUy. § 3. (b) The contents of the faith, as they are more fuUy realized and related to other things, come to be expressed in new and varied language, and in terms borrowed from other departments of thought. Each 1 Cf. St. John xvi. 13. It is promised that the Spirit will "shew you the things that are to come" — perhaps this refers to the larger revelations which the apostles could not bear before the Resurrection had opened their eyes, or to the future bearings of the things of Christ which He was to shew them. 2 St. Matt. xiii. 52: "... which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Cf. Col. ii. 3. 3 Revelation of the Risen Lord, p. 160. 284 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE age asks for expositions of Christian doctrine in terms which are suited to its own understanding. Forms of thought, and the use of words, continually change; and, if the nature of the faith is rightly to be understood, its ancient terms must be translated again and again into the language of current speech.1 The exigencies of controversy are so many occasions of development in doctrinal terminology. Erroneous explications of the faith appear continuaUy, and have to be met by fresh statements, the terms of which guard the faith in each case from some new perver sion of it. When the circumstances so require and permit, these new definitions are sanctioned by eccle siastical authority, and become tests of orthodoxy — i.e. of faithfulness to the ancient doctrines of the Church.2 Moreover, the Church is confronted in each age by new forms of philosophy and unbelief, and her theologians are compelled to frame new apologies in which the terminology of current science and philosophy is taken into account and employed in the interests of 1 To translate does not, however, mean either alteration or dis placement of the original. Credal terms, for instance, retain their full force and authority, although made intelligible to each age by theological explications suited to the time. 2 The first Nicene Council sanctioned a term, o/noovaios, that had been rejected in the previous century by the important Council of Antioch because of its misleading use. The term needed to be cleared of heretical implications, and its adoption in the third century would have been premature. But once crystallized in the Nicene sense, its use represented a legitimate development of doctrinal language. LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 285 revealed truth.1 The result is that new terms are taken into theology and are employed in exact definition of saving truth. These terms are often metaphysical in origin. It does not foUow, however, that the faith is converted into, or identified with, philosophy. What happens is that metaphysical terms are appropriated to new uses, and come to signify technically and theo- logicaUy the immutable truths of cathohc theology.2 § 4. (c) The human mind has an instinctive tendency to co-ordinate the contents of knowledge, and to con sider the relations that connect particular truths. This tendency is legitimate,3 and exercises a great influence upon theological thought and language. Theology tends to become more and more scientific as the ages roU on; and the reasonableness of revealed truths is made increasingly apparent to thoughtful men by a fuUer exhibition of their coherence with each other and with aU departments of truth.4 Thus the Church at an early period began the task of formulating the truths of divine unity and threefold personahty in con nection with each other. And each new transition of •The present tendency to translate Christian doctrines into the terms of personality illustrates this. How far it is being kept within safe limits will appear more clearly in another generation. Not all the truths of Christianity can be defined thus without perversion. They all have personal bearing, however. And to exhibit such bearing cannot but enrich catholic theology. 2 The phrase "real presence" illustrates this. ' It is a necessary branch of effort to assimilate truth and fact more intelligently. ? Cf . Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. i. Pt. VI., on the relations of theology to other sciences. 286 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE thought has seen the co-ordination of other truths and the fuller development of systematic theology. This development never ceases, and new departments of revealed truth are co-ordinated and brought into scien tific adjustment as the progress of theology permits this to be done. The ancient fathers achieved this work chiefly in the sphere of Theology Proper and the Incar nation. Later on the truths of anthropology and of divine grace were dealt with,1 and the theologians of our own age are giving other subjects the same scien tific treatment. There is necessarily a limit to this development. Divine truth is but partially revealed, although what is revealed is in a real sense an outhne of all truth; and no final system of doctrine is possible. Scientific theology must grow continuaUy, and must ever be subject to correction by the reassertion of the particulars of divine revelation in their original integrity. It may not change or minimize any article of the faith in the interests of logical completeness and intelhgibihty. § 5. (d) Finally, the practical bearing and larger significance of the faith are brought to Hght more ade quately, as the result of apphcation of its truths to the guidance of Hfe. The principle that one must Hve the true Hfe in order to know the true doctrine of 1 The fact that this last and subsequent developments have been in a great measure confined to the Western Church deprives them of the ecumenical rank and finality that belongs to the developments which were registered by the Ecumenical Councils. Augustinian theology, valuable as it is, is provincial, at least so far as it is distinctive. Allen's ContinuUy of Christian Thought, however, exaggerates the contrast between Augustinian and Eastern theology. LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 287 Christ1 involves, as its inevitable consequence, that the truths of revelation will be increasingly appreciated and understood in proportion to the variety of practical problems to which they are applied successfuUy. With the progress of human civilization — a progress which has been enormously facihtated by the pubhcation of the Gospel — the richness of hfe increases. Thus the truths of cathohc teaching come more and more abun dantly into practical apphcation, and are found to afford the truest solution of difficulties in every walk of Hfe.2 The science of moral theology goes on de veloping through aU time, and its development means richer understanding of the faith. For example, amid aU the crudities which gain currency in popular expo sition, the truths of divine Fatherhood and human brotherhood are coming to be better understood in the Church as weU as in the world. It remains, however, that the richer mind of the modern Church touching these truths consists simply of a fuUer practical realiza- tion of what was maintained by the ancient Church.3 1 "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself." St. John vii. 17. Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. ix. Pt. I., on the practical aspects of Dogmatic Theology. 2 Not an immediate or formal solution, but a point of view which alone makes a practical solution possible. Catholic doctrine sets forth the correct and probationary meaning of life's difficulties; and points to the way in which peace must come between the different classes of so ciety, if at all. The love which dogma guards is the ultimate sine qua non of the successful working of any sociological scheme whatsoever. 3 Temple's Bampton Lectures gives some thoughtful remarks on the development of doctrine by practical application to new problems. 288 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE II. Illegitimate Developments § 6. The Umits of legitimate developments of doc trine are often exceeded, and we need carefully to dis tinguish between developments which are sound and those which are unsound and iUegitimate. § 7. (a) Developments which have the result of enlarging the area of doctrine imposed as necessary to be believed are obviously iUegitimate. By enlarging the area. of doctrine is not meant the mere articulation of its original contents or imphcations, or an increase of expHcit definitions of what has been imphcitly con tained in the faith from the beginning, but the impo* sition of doctrines the premises of which are drawn from speculative sources lying outside the demonstrable contents of divine revelation, and not provable by Holy Scripture. The point may be made more clear, perhaps, if we distinguish between conclusions which are the result of deduction and those which arise from induction. In deduction the conclusion is really contained in the premises of argument, and constitutes what may be caUed an analytical judgment — one which adds nothing new to the data previously known, but merely expresses what is imphcit in them in an explicit form.1 Thus, when we reason from premises already acknowl edged, that "all men are rational," and that "all •The distinction between analytical and synthetical judgments was made by Kant. It is expounded in Baldwin, Die. of Philos., s.v. "Analytic and Synthetic Judgment." We have applied the distinction somewhat differently. ILLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 289 Americans are men," to the conclusion that " all Ameri cans are rational," our conclusion merely brings to articulate and separate expression what is demonstrably contained in the premises. So again, when we deduce the truth of a real presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharistic Sacrament from the divine revelation that the consecrated species are His Body and Blood,1 we add nothing in the conclusion to what is reaUy latent in the divinely revealed premise; for whatever is rightly identified with a concrete object is really present with it. Accordingly the doctrine of the real presence is not an enlargement of the area of the original revelation. On the other hand, to use the contents of revelation as the basis of induction, and then to treat the results of such induction as necessary to be beheved, is to enlarge the area of the original faith revealed to the Church. Induction starts with particulars and rises by a process of speculative generalization to hypotheses which are not fully contained within the premises. In defining the law of gravitation, for instance, Newton hypothecated a wider area of fact than had been reaUy ascertained or proved. His hypothesis was merely a 1 This revelation was made by our Lord partly at Capernaum, St. John vi. 51-58; and partly in the night of His betrayal, St. Matt. xxvi. 26-28; St. Mark xiv. 22-24; St. Luke xxii. 19-20. It was con- finned by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23-27. Every word of these scriptural passages has been the subject of close criticism and controversy. Their interpretation, however, affords a very important instance of the necessity of having regard for the Church's ecumenical judgment, perfectly clear in this case,*as to the doctrinal teaching of Holy Scrip ture. 2O0 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE hypothesis, and was not whoUy contained within exist ing experience, nor is it thus contained now. It con stituted what we may caU a synthetical judgment — one which predicated more than the subject-matter had been ascertained to contain. Again, divine revela tion assures us that to reject the Gospel — wittingly, of course, for unwitting rejection is a contradiction in terms — involves forfeiture of the kingdom of heaven.1 Individual writers have made an induction from this particular, and have reached the conclusion that no human being can ever enter the kingdom of heaven unless he has accepted the Gospel in this Hfe. It is quite unnecessary at this point to discuss the specu lative value of such a conclusion. We maintain, how ever, that the conclusion referred to is larger in content than the revelation from which it is inferred. It is a hypothesis, a synthetical judgment, and asserts more than the premise contains. The premise asserts cer tain consequences to those who reject the Gospel, where as the conclusion subjects all who miss the knowledge of the Gospel to these consequences. Such a conclusion must remain to the end a speculative opinion merely. To make it a part of Christian doctrine is an example of illegitimate development. This is true of aU specula tive opinions whatsoever — i.e. opinions which hypothe cate more than is demonstrably contained in the revealed faith of the Church. Much is said in favour of a larger faith. If this means a richer realization of thet ancient faith without 1 Cf. above, pp. 271, 272, and note 2 in loc. ILLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 291 subversion of its ancient meaning, it is to be welcomed. But if it means, as is frequently the case, substantial accretion to necessary doctrine along the hnes of induc tion and synthetical judgment, such a faith affords an in stance of iUegitimate development. If it means a more elastic faith — one which is less insistent upon faithful maintenance of the original deposit of truth committed to the Church, — such a faith in reality signifies care lessness touching the truths of salvation, and also represents an iUegitimate development. If it means a hopeful attitude of mind towards the future, and in relation to matters not revealed to us, surely such a faith is to be welcomed, provided it does not conflict with or prejudice the revealed certainties of the Church's faith. What we have said is not intended to throw discredit on the use of inductive speculation in divine things. Such speculation, when kept within its proper use, is scientific and valuable. We have already shown that it can be employed fruitfully in considering the mani fold data of theology contained in Holy Scripture.1 The Scriptures exhibit a spiritual world, dominated and controUed at each stage of its manifestation by an increasing fulness of divine truth and power. Its phenomena reveal a supernatural order, and obey the laws of the kingdom of God, much as the phenomena of the natural order obey natural laws. The inductive method is appHcable in each case — in the one to verify and iUustrate a revealed faith, in the other to do the 1 Ch. vii. § 9. 292 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE same in relation to the hypotheses and dogmas of natural science. It is to be acknowledged that scriptural inductions, and the synthetical judgments or theological hypotheses based upon them, are not Hmited to the area of necessary and saving doctrine. But it should be added that these wider inductions have neither more nor less security than scientific expertness in spiritual things can give them. They are valuable for the development of scientific theology, but nothing can be treated by such theology as de fide which the Spirit-guided CathoHc Church has not perceived to be revealed as necessary to be beheved for salvation. The Church teaches, and so far as necessary defines, essential doctrine; and the Scriptures confirm and illustrate her teaching, by ex hibiting manifold facts, prophecies, dramas, types, etc., in which it is imbedded. The Scriptures not only afford data for theological inductions, but they also Umit and correct doctrinal developments. New definitions and propositions must accord with relevant facts and revelations, and these facts and revelations are contained in the Scriptures. The guidance of the Spirit guarantees that cathohc doctrines will thus accord with the Scriptures. But the importance of a fresh study of Scripture in each age is very great. What would otherwise crystaUize into Ufeless and abstract formula is thus contemplated in manifold practical connections, and is perceived to be a Ught to guide us along the pathway of life. To conclude this section, no developments of doctrine can ILLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 293 be accepted that disagree with Holy Scripture and cannot be verified thereby.1 § 8. (b) It is iUegitimate, and materiaUy fallacious, to develop a theological system which is based upon frag mentary portions of the faith. It means a use of inade quate premises, and is the ordinary cause of heresies. The heretic begins by emphasizing some favourite truth, neglecting other and related truths that should govern the manner of our holding and emphasizing it.2 The truth thus removed from its interpretive setting assumes the form of caricature, and the inferences which are drawn from it are one-sided, and lead their maintainers on to a denial of what at first was merely neglected. Thus the area of the faith is narrowed. Arius began with an exclusive emphasis upon the truth that Christ is Son, neglecting the counter truth that He is divine, and therefore co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He proceeded to infer that, as Son, Christ must be later in time than His Father, which would be true if He had been a human Son merely, which He was not. If later in time than the Father, Arius reasoned, there must have been a time when He was not. This led on to the further conclusion that He was a creature, and mutable. Thus Arius came to a denial of our Lord's co-essential Godhead. 1 The fresh study of Scripture is the most important of several lines of critical scholarship concerned with the purging of ecclesi astical traditions from non-primitive accretions. On this see ch. iv. SiS- 2 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vi. § 19, on the partisan, heretical, and reactionary tempers. 294 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE One who remembers that divine sonship is eternal, and involves an eternal generation, is not Hkely to repeat the mistake of Arius.1 § 9. (c) Unregulated attempts to attain to logical completeness in doctrinal conceptions frequently cause illegitimate developments, and are apt to weaken men's hold upon particulars of the faith. It is often forgotten that, although the faith is in a real sense organic, so that its truths are vitally related to each other, our knowledge of these truths cannot, in this world, become sufficiently exhaustive for us to be able to formulate a completely rounded system of doc trine that will have permanent scientific validity. We can indeed detect many of the relations which connect the articles of our faith. If it were not so, there could be no science of theology — no rational co-ordination of revealed truths. But many gaps remain, and beyond certain sure teachings of divine revelation, and their im mediate imphcations, we cannot define with finality the relations which bind truth to truth, and which, if fully known, would make possible a final and logically symmetrical formulation of divine truth as a whole. Truths but partially understood may indeed be held together in certain obvious connections with each other; but a more exhaustive knowledge of them is required than we can now acquire before we can fully explain these connections and solve the seeming oppositions with which our partial apprehension is concerned. 1 See Newman, Arians, ch. ii. § v. Cf. Mozley, Theory of Develop ment, pp. 41-44. ILLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 295 The final harmony of such truths, for instance, as divine immutabihty and sovereignty on the one hand, and human freedom and contingency, on the other, is to be beheved in rather than understood and explained. The attempt to explain — to solve problems now insoluble — is certain to result in a sacrifice of one truth, or group of truths, in the interests of another. The whole course of Christological error illustrates this, the Godhead and the Manhood suffering obscuration by turns, because of futile efforts to "solve the problem " of their union in one Person. The conclusion of the matter is that we must place opposing truths which we cannot harmonize in simple juxtaposition, lest by separately and one-sidedly emphasizing one we some how weaken our hold upon the other. This is peculiarly necessary when we undertake to make deductions from either.1 § 10. (d) Unless divine revelation is false, or the teaching of Church and Scripture as to its contents untrustworthy, it is an iUegitimate Une of development to modify the faith in order to harmonize its propo sitions with the physical and historical conclusions of natural science. It is illegitimate for several reasons. In the first place, in the nature of things, no possible conclusions in the physical and historical order can 1 In deprecating such placing in juxtaposition of the divine and human attributes of Christ, certain English theologians, who believe with all their hearts in the veritable Godhead of our Lord, are making it harder for those who are less deeply grounded in tra ditional doctrine to retain that belief. The readiness to hold to gether truths which baffle our attempts to reconcile, but which are 296 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE militate against the contents of cathohc doctrine, unless, — as is altogether incredible — historical criticism dis proves those facts of the Gospel narrative which con stitute the primary content and basis of our faith. The faith helps us to appreciate the divine significance of natural events and laws; and a knowledge of these in turn is of the greatest value in a theological exhibition of the faith in its larger bearings. But the facts and certainties of nature and human history cannot be prejudiced by the contents of supernatural revelation, except on the extra-scientific and false supposition that the supernatural cannot manifest itself within the natural order.1 Another reason, somewhat connected with the above, is that we have abundant grounds for acceptmg the truth of cathohc doctrine, and truth cannot really be contradicted by truth. We must not confound oppositions that appear insoluble to our reason with contradictions that can be seen to be such, and which therefore require the abandonment of one or other of the conflicting propositions. Thoughtful people can severally contained in divine revelation, is an important characteristic of the docile and catholic temper. Cf. the writer's Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. vi. Pt. III., and Kenotic Theory, pp. 83-85. 1 The supernatural is considered in Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. ii. It is to be observed that the presence in scriptural narratives of state ments of fact which lie outside the sphere of saving truth does not make them to be articles of faith; nor may they be made such by a priori notions of the consequences of biblical inspiration. It follows that alleged contradictions beteween the scriptural narratives referred to and modern science, whether correct or not, leave the contents of the catholic faith untouched. Cf. ch. vii. §§ 5, 6, above. ILLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 297 see the difference. They can see, for instance, that two and two cannot equal five in any sphere, and at the same time can realize that the two propositions which affirm three divine Persons and one only divine Being are not demonstrably contradictory, however much they transcend our power to rationahze. If the conclusions of natural and historical scientists seem to us to contradict the contents of revealed teaching, we are either confusing an opposition that is due to our mental hmitations with real contradiction, or mistak ing what is to be asserted in one or other of the two spheres of knowledge compared. We may err as to what is reaUy estabHshed in the sphere of natural investigation, and be over hasty in accepting hypotheses which, with fuller knowledge and riper thinking, wiU have to be modified, or even abandoned. On the other hand, we may be defend ing as de fide what is merely a speculative inference of theologians, based on earlier but mistaken physical or historical hypotheses. Thus, when theologians thought that the Copemican view of heavenly orbits was con trary to Christian doctrine, they were mistakenly iden tifying earlier astronomical science, to which bibhcal criticism and apologetical theology had adjusted itself, with revealed doctrine. The opposition lay in reaHty between antiquated astronomy which theologians had not outgrown and a more modern astronomy.1 •Herbert Spencer says, First Principles, ch. i. § 6, "And if both [religion and natural science] have bases in the reality of things, then between them there must be fundamental harmony. It is 298 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE We have need to distinguish carefuUy between the facts discovered by natural scientists and their hypoth eses, which for the present may work within the sphere of apphcation to which they are put, but which may have to be given up or amended when apphed to wider areas of relevant fact. Theologians need to be ac quainted in a general way with the progress of natural science, for valuable data are thus acquired for theo logical interpretation and apologetical consideration. But the greatest care should be taken lest by commit ting ourselves too absolutely to current hypotheses we bequeath theological inferences to our successors that will cause renewed conflict between theological and physical scientists. We should also be careful not to treat the Scriptures as if they were intended to antici pate the discoveries of natural investigators. This has been a fruitful cause of unnecessary controversy.1 Every advance in theoretical knowledge, practical experience, and human thought can, and ought to, be enlisted in the splendid work of making theology what it should be — a luminous and rational exposition of the divine in relation to the varied content of the uni verse, and its development towards the goal ordained for it. A theology that does not grow richer and more rational in its appeal to intelligent children of God is impossible that there should be two orders of truth in absolute and everlasting opposition. . . . Each side, therefore, has to recognize the claims of the other as representing truths which are not to be ignored." Unfortunately he goes on to reduce the content of knowl edge in both spheres almost to nothing by his agnostic philosophy. 1 Cf. ch. vii. §§ 5, 6, above. DLLEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENTS 299 dead while it seems to Hve — a mummy that lasts on, but is forsaken by its Hving spirit. § 11. The development of doctrine requires on the part of theologians abundant and fresh study of Holy Scripture in every generation; openness of mind to all new scientific knowledge that can be employed either to iUustrate divine operations or to con very in inteUigible terms the contents of supernatural revelation; careful study of the forms of thought and language which are developed by philosophers, in order that they may be enlisted in a more precise exhibition of theological truth; and a correct and appreciative understanding of the practical conditions, sociological problems, and ideals of the times, in order to be able effectively to teach living men in fundamental truth.1 No one theologian, indeed, can become an expert in aU these spheres of investigation, but he can and ought in a general way to keep abreast of the increasing knowl edge and practical developments of his age. §12. The development of doctrine brings into play a fruitful combination of dependence upon authority and exercise of reason. In legitimate development neither are disregarded, but both concur in the com mon purpose of making divine truth victorious and practically valuable. Authority is false when it is not a means of publishing truth; while the primary func tion of reason is to assimilate truth and make it pre vail practicaUy. The development of doctrine is to be tested primarily, therefore, by its success in combining 1 Cf. Introd. to Dog. Theol, ch. iii. §§ 11-16, on theological sources. 300 THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE a deference to trustworthy authority, as supplementary to the teaching of experience, with a spirituaUy assisted use of sound reason. To speak specifically, the tests of a doctrinal develop ment are fundamentally three: (a) It must proceed from truths that have been held to be essential parts of divine revelation everywhere in the Cathohc Church, always, and by the generahty of representative cathohc theologians, and are contained in the Sacred Scrip tures; (b) its premises must be sufficient, as well as cathohc and scriptural; (c) its logic must be convin cing and free from fallacy. If these conditions are adequately fulfilled, the result is necessarily sound and legitimate.1 It is, of course, to be remembered that an adequate logic is neither exclusivelyintellectual, norpurely natural; but enhsts every faculty of the soul in proportionate and harmonious exercise, accepts credible authority, does justice to all pertinent facts and conditions, and is made secure and fruitful by sanctifying grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. 1 Newman gives seven tests in his treatise on Development, ch. v. They are of uneven value, and were misapplied in some particulars by him. But they are in themselves sound and worth considering. He says that a true development must show the notes of (a) preserva tion of type, or of the doctrine from which it proceeds; (6) continuity of principles; (c) power of assimilating legitimate thought to itself; (d) logical sequence; (e) anticipation of later stages in the implicates of earlier Christian thought; (/) conservative action of later develop ments on earlier teaching; (g) chronic vigour, or ability to hold its own in living thought and under changed intellectual conditions. THE END By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Pro fessor of Dogmatic Theology in the Gen eral Theological Seminary, New York. THE LONG DESIRED ANGLICAN SUMMA OF DOCTRINE A series of ten volumes in Dogmatic Theology, crown 8vo., each complete in itself, designed to constitute a con nected treatment of the entire range of Catholic Doctrine. Price, each volume, $2.00 net I. Introduction (published in 1907). II. Authority, Ecclesiastical and Biblical (pub lished in 1908). III. The Being and Attributes op God (published in 1909).- IV. The Trinity (published in 1910). V. Creation and Man. (published in 191 2). VI. The Incarnation. - (Published in 1915). .VII. The Redemption and Exaltation op Christ. VIII. The Church and Her Sacraments. IX. The Minor Sacraments. X. Eschatology and Indexes. LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. NEW YORK, LONDON, BOMBAY and CALCUTTA HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Occupying a point of view which, is Anglican and CathoHc, the writer joyfully recognizes the value of modern advances in knowledge and thought, and seeks to coordinate the new with the old. Convinced that the ancient Catholic Faith cannot be imperilled by Truth from any quarter, he also believes that it needs to be exhibited in the terms of modern intelligence, if theology is to retain its place as the queen of sciences. The volumes which have thus far been published have secured a favorable and encouraging reception on both sides of the Atlantic. The learning, skill in argument and clearness of exposition shown in the work; the author's success in trans lating ancient doctrines into modern terms, and his sympa thetic understanding of new knowledge and contemporary thought, have been acknowledged by reviewers of every type — Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant alike; — and his reverent adherence to Catholic doctrine has also been noticed. The following brief extracts are selected from a considerable number of generally favorable reviews. Volume I. INTRODUCTION Pp. xlii-273. Journal op Theological Studies, Oxford and Cambridge: "The author's learning and wide reading are as conspicuous throughout the book as is his fidelity to the point of view. ..." Church Union Gazette, London: . . . "is a compara tively small book into which an immense amount of valuable fact and criticism has been compressed . . . there breathes a spirit of large-mindedness, a refusal to be confined within any groove of prejudice." Church Times, London: "This admirable treatise should be found very useful on both sides of the Atlantic. . . .The book reaches a high level of excellence." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY The Living Church, Milwaukee: "It exhibits the qualities which previous books have led us to expect from Dr. Hall, the severely restrained language, the careful accuracy of statement, the equitable judgement, and the background of knowledge. . . .When completed, the series will undoubtedly be a monumental addition to Anglican and indeed to Catholic Theology. It may, indeed, in time be recognized as holding such a place in Anglican theology as is held by the Summa of Thomas Aquinas in the Latin communion." Church Standard, Philadelphia: "Dr. Hall is not Latin. He is Catholic, to be sure, very much so, but in the true Anglican spirit he continues to bring the modern into his Catholicity, and give us a modern while he is giving a Catholic theology." Expository Times : After referring to the writer's briefer outlines, "the fuller scope of the new volume reveals a new writer, a writer with a very extensive knowledge of the litera ture of his subject, to which he makes continual reference, and one who has manifestly mastered its literature and made his subject a real personal possession." Scottish Chronicle: "Its earnestness and learning are admirable." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "Dr. Hall is eminently qualified for the task he has undertaken. . . . Not the least of Dr. Hall's qualifications as a theologian is his extensive acquaintance with our Catholic authors . . . his style may be commended as a model of theological writing in English; it is clear; concise, direct, dignified, and elegant." Pax, 'England: '.'That Dr. Hall possesses the necessary qualifications for the task will be apparent to those who know his theological monographs and his book on The Kenotic Theory; and this volume promises well for the success of his undertaking." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume II. AUTHORITY "Ecclesiastical and Biblical Pp. xvi— 300. The Guardian, London: "The present volume, which forms a treatise complete in itself, is even abler than the first, and most opportune. . . .The entire book is marked by caution, balance, and restraint, and deserves to be carefully read. A noticeable feature of the book is the immense {number of modern writers referred to or discussed." London Quarterly Review: "Dr. Hall uses his space well. . .he writes with candor and ability." Church Times, London: "Everything that is said in this book about oecumenical authority, the authority of Councils, of National Churches, and so forth, is admirable. . .[Referring to the whole series.] That is a great enterprise, worthily begun." Record-Herald, Chicago: "It is refreshing to meet such a book, simple and lucid in style, scholarly, thorough, con servative, but not bigoted, marshalling arguments and meet ing objections after the manner of the masters of theology." The Churchman, New York: "Of special value. . .is the chapter on the Dogmatic Office and Tradition. . . .There is a good analysis of the various theories of inspiration and a cautious discussion of the functions and legitimate scope of Biblical criticism." Scottish Chronicle: "This book. . .will be welcomed by many students of divinity. It is a well thought-out treatise on the meaning of authority in religion, in which are consid ered the three factors of spiritual knowledge. . .viz., eccle- siatical authority, biblical authority, and reason." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Living Church, Milwaukee: "We believe that. . .Dr. Hall states most adequately and most accurately the answer of the Anglican communion to the questions that divide Christians to-day, and that on substantially the lines of his answer must be built up the position that will ultimately prove the factor that will unite Christendom." Sewanee Review, Tennessee: "Prof. Hall has a very dis tinct gift for systematizing." Church Union Gazette, London: "Its chief value lies in the way in which he recognizes and emphasizes all the factors which are Involved in any true knowledge of Divine things, not minimizing any, nor exalting one at the expense of another; but showing how, by the combination of all, we obtain a certitude which nothing can overthrow." Pax, England: "As a really good compendium with valu able references, this book deserves all praise." Volume III. THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD Pp. xvi-310. Expository Times : "It is the book of a student, the book of a thinker, the book of a believer. There is not a loose sentence in it, and there is no trivial rhetoric. It is above all the book of a student. Professor Hall's knowledge of the subject is an amazement." Living Church, Milwaukee: "Dr. Hall has produced a noble book." Irish Theological Quarterly, Dublin: "We. . .are glad to be able to praise the third still more unreservedly than its predecessors. It is an excellent manual of systematic theism. HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY the very 'best of its kind by an Anglican that we know of, and one of the absolutely best. . .the book has to be read in order to be appreciated." Journal op Theological Studies, London: "No argu ment for the existence of God has escaped his notice, and any one who reads his book must feel that Christian theists have no cause to be ashamed of the intellectual case they can present." The Guardian, London: ". . .the admirable second volume on Authority led us to expect much from the writer. . . . One of the best things between the covers is the discussion of the Ontological Argument. ... It should be needless to add that •Professor Hall's work is marked throughout by the firm and reverential adherence to the Catholic religion which character izes all the products of the author's mind." Church Union Gazette, London: "An atmosphere of solid, hard work breathes through this book. The reader is made to feel that every sentence has been deeply weighed, and more than once rewritten. The task. . .is of an intensely difficult nature, but the result. . .can be generally described as successful in the better sense of the word." Church Times, London: "His theology is always thoroughly Catholic and scientific. . .preserving the balance and propor tion of faith. . .is a compendium of sound and luminous the ology, which should be on every student's shelf." Interior, Chicago: "The previous numbers we have heartily commended. . . .Every page bears witness to the learning of the writer and the precision of his mental processes. Such a study so pursued is rare nowadays, but in its matter and its method it justifies itself." Volume IV. THE TRINITY Pp. xix-316. Guardian, London: "The most valuable part of this volume. . .is the chapter on personality and related terms in HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY modern thought. . .we have again to thank him for a learned •and useful exposition." Churchman, New York: "It must be reckoned the most important and valuable of the series so far; indeed, the most noteworthy theological treatise of the year. . .one may hope that many clergy and laity. . .will make themselves masters of this admirable volume . American and English Christianity owes a great debt to the learned and devout scholar." Church Times, London: "Professor Hall's excellent and worthy series. . . .But we refer the reader to Dr. Hall's volume, which will be indispensable to every student, elementary or advanced." Record, London: "The student. . .will find in this book a useful and comprehensive survey of the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, and its theological significance." Living Church, Milwaukee: "The marvel is how Dr. Hall can so exactly treat in such a brief way the many matters he handles. . . .We have said enough to show how valuable and masterly is this volume." Continent, Chicago: "It cannot be said that the able and learned author avoids any real difficulty, although dealing with a most difficult theme. . . .No one can deny that these lectures are able, clearly stated and imbued with the spirit of a true believer." Church op Ireland Gazette: "Professor Hall. . .has made a decidedly valuable contribution to Dogmatic Theology by his. . .book on the Trinity. . . .The chapter dealing with 'Difficulties' is exceedingly well written. This is a book which should find a place at an early date on every well appointed book-shelf. Its freshness, the straight, clear presentation of its matter, will appeal to everyone." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume V. CREATION AND MAN Pp. xviii-353 The Guardian, London : " We heartily commend this book as a very able introduction to the vast subject of which it treats. . . . The subject-matter is admirably arranged and the main arguments are lucid and satisfying. The references to modern literature are extensive and supply a very complete course of reading with Dr. Hall as a competent critic and guide." Living Church: "A large number of difficult problems falling within the domain not merely of the theologian, but also within the domain of the philosopher and metaphysician and scientist, are taken in hand by Dr. Hall in his wonted lucid, calm, and balanced way of treating his subjects. . . . We trust that many will procure and carefully read Dr. Hall's able treatise." Southern Churchman: "As a clear statement of the posi tion of the Catholic faith, the young theologian can find no- better help than this." Biblical World: ". . . The book should be found in all theo logical libraries. . . . The author has defined with great care his attitude toward the results of modern physical and biological investigation. . . ." Churchman: "The author shows in this, as in the previous volumes of the same series, a wide range of reading, logical thought, clear and convenient arrangement of material, and painstaking scholarship. Beside this, abundant and valuable references to many books and treatises, ancient and modern, may well stimulate the reader to a criticism and amplification of the author's own conclusions. Dr. Hall is a theologian of whom our Church may well be proud. Able, sincere, and scholarly theological work, such as this volume exhibits, is of real service to the Church, and is bound to be useful to serious students of all schools of thought." American Journal of Theology: " The style is simple, vigorous, eminently readable— one might almost add fascinating. The book is supplied with abundant bibliographical notes. . . ." HALL'S DOGMATIC THEOLOGY Volume VI. THE INCARNATION Pp. xix-353. Church Times: "Each volume has increased our admiration for his scholarship, wide learning, and amazing industry." Living Church: "It must be said that no point of modern Christological speculation has escaped his notice, and that he endeavors throughout to preserve a sympathetic and open mind, quite as much as to state his own very positive convictions." Churchman, New York: "All of Dr. Hall's writing is impor tant, and it is gratifying to have such a work as his presented to the world as the characteristic product of the American Episcopal Church. He is one of our few really distinguished theologians." Expository Times: "Now Professor Hall is very capable, and even on such a subject as the Person of our Lord he is en titled to write. He is both ancient and modern." The Biblical World: "Dr. Hall's exposition of the tra ditional orthodox view of the incarnation is admirable. . . . Anyone who will study and not merely read his book will at least respect the traditional view and see that there is still some living thought in bygone controversies." Holy Cross Magazine: "It is . . . not only a spiritual but an intellectual treat, to find Dr. Hall moving with such complete ease amid the Incarnation data, yet appreciating at the same time £he theologian's moral obligation at least to attempt to express the Faith in 'a language understanded of the people' . . . We commend the book for the clarity with which the Catholic perspective is expressed, and for the reverent agnos ticism which is the inevitable corollary." Southern Churchman: "The result is a work of great value . . . Dr. Hall excels in accuracy of definition and in lucidity of expression, and the reader has no difficulty in grasping his mean ing nor in following the steps of his reasoning." EVOLUTION AND THE FALL By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., Author of "Dogmatic Theology," "The Kenotic Theory," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii-l-225. Cloth, net, $1.50 , The author's aim is to show that one may frankly and fully accept the scientific hypothesis that man is descended on the phys ical side of his nature from the lower species, and may acknowl edge that his natural evolution from brute ancestors constitutes an important factor in causing his existing moral state, without incurring the necessity of qualifying his acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of man's primitive state and fall. His argument involves an elimination, on the physical side, of the speculative philosophy called naturalism, and, on the theological side, of speculative conceptions of original sin that are not sup ported by really Catholic authority. He seeks to do adequate justice to evolutionary science, being convinced that real science must inevitably fortify one's hold upon really Catholic doctrine. Reviews Christian World, London: "It would be good if all theolo gians who write on the evolutionary hypothesis manifested the same knowledge and appreciation of its strong and weak points." Churchman, London: Referring to the exposition of the evo lutionary theory: "Nothing could be clearer or more helpful than this part of the treatment, especially in its freedom from technical scientific terminology." Guardian, London: "Like all the author's work, the book is cautious and careful, strongly conservative, yet sympathetic with modern conceptions." Church Times, London: "We welcome Dr. Hall's book as the work of a man who seems thoroughly abreast of all that is being done in the field of biological science. . . . His work as a teacher has developed in him the gift of clear exposition, and he moves with apparent mastery in this thorny and difficult field." THE KENOTIC THEORY CONSDJERED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ITS ANGLICAN FORMS AND ARGUMENTS By the Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., author of "Dogmatic Theology," etc. Crown 8vo. pp. xviii+247. Cloth, net, $1.50. This volume is written in opposition to the theory that, in order to assume a real manhood and submit to human conditions, our Lord emptied Himself of certain divine prerogatives and attributes during the period of His earthly hfe. The writer endeavors to show that this theory is (a) a modem novelty; (b) contrary to the Church's oecumenical decree of faith; (c) rejected by Catholic doctors; (d) not warranted by the facts contained in the Gospels of the statements of Holy Scripture; (e) fallacious in its reasoning; and (/) perilous in its logical results. Clearness and simplicity of treatment is aimed at, and numerous citations are made from ancient and modem authorities. Reviews Living Church: "It is his thorough grasp of those funda mental principles that has enabled Dr. Hall to give us in his 'Kenotic Theory' a theological treatise of more than ordinary value. It has the singular charm of being direct, to the point, lucid, and without verbiage from beginning to end. . . . Dr. Hall . . . lays down, with exactness and precision, the question at issue. . . : Dr. Hall has done good work in discriminating as he has done between the views of Kenotic Schools. . . . No where have we seen a better answer to the baseless assumptions which have been made in England and America to formulate a complete doctrine of the Incarnation out of a single passage in St. Paul's writings." Church Times: "The book should be in every circulating library, and should not be merely read, but studied, as a treatise which from its merits is a candidate for a place as a handbook upon an integral question in theology." LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. PUBLICATIONS CHURCH AND STATE IN ENGLAND TO THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE. By HENRY MELVTLL GWATK1N, D.D., Late Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge; etc. With a Preface by the Rev. E. W. WATSON, D.D., Regius Pro fessor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 8vo. Pp. viii+416. $5.00 net. "An informed and intelligent student will find in this book what, so far as I know, has never been published in England on a scale both modest and comprehensive — a survey of our secular and eccle siastical development, in due co-ordination and proportion." — From the Preface. LIFE AND LETTERS OF THOMAS HODGKTN, Fellow of Uni versity College, D.C.L. Oxford and Durham, D.Litt. Dublin. By LOUISE CREIGHTON, author of "Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton, D.D.," etc. With Portraits and Other JJlus- trations. 8vo. Pp. xvi +445. $4.50 net. THE CONVERSION OF EUROPE. By CHARLES HENRY ROBINSON, D.D., Hon. Canon of Ripon and Editorial Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 8vo. Pp. xxiv-l-640. $6.00 net. "We may congratulate him on his selection of a branch of mis sionary history so full of opportunity for the valuable work which the missionary world has learned to expect from him. He treats the various countries or races in twenty separate chapters and devotes 33 pages to a bibliography." — The Times (London). THE LIFE AND FRIENDSHIPS OF CATHERINE MARSH. By L. E. O'RORKE. With s Portraits and 6 Other JJlustrations. 8vo. $3.75 net. A biography, illuminated by much correspondence, her own and others, of the author and philanthropist (1818-1912) — known as an author chiefly by her "Memorials of Capt. Hedley Vicars"; and as a devoted worker in the cause of Missions to Navvies, of the distribution of Bibles to troops in the Crimean, Franco-Prussian, and South African Wars, and of convalescent homes. FATHER STANTON'S SERMON OUTLINES. From his own Manuscript. Edited by E. F. RUSSELL, M.A., S. Alban's, Holborn. Crown 8vo. -Pp.xx+ 236. $1.73 net. PRIMITIVE WORSHIP AND THE PRAYER BOOK: Ra tionale, History, and Doctrine of the English, Irish, Scottish and American Books. By the Rev. WALKER GWYNNE, D.D., author of "The Christian Year: Its Purpose and Its His tory," etc. Crown 8vo. Pp. xxvi+426. $2.50 net. "Just the book needed by theological students and laymen in general, being fully informing and happy in style. . . . Just the one to place in the hands of a non-Church friend who wishes to know the why of the Prayer Book." — The North Bast. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02967 7185