Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

candid Roman Catholic will be disposed to question. "The first and most ancient catalogue of the Canonical books that we have, drawn up by a Christian author, is that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis. This catalogue is mentioned by Eusebius in the 26th chapter of the 4th book of his history. In it he reckons only twentytwo books of the Old Testament. Origen, in a passage extracted from his commentary on the 1st Psalm, reckons also twenty-two. The Council of Laodicea, which is the first Synod wherein the number of Canonical books was determined, assigns only twentytwo books of the Old Testament, including the book of Esther, and joining Baruch, the Lamentations and the letters, with the prophecy of Jeremiah. This catalogue is followed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth catechetical lecture, and by St. Athanasius in his Festival epistle." The same historian says again that "the first catalogue wherein the books of the Apocrypha were admitted as canonical and as having the same authority as the Bible, is that of the third Council of Carthage, (Africa,) held in the year 397;" he further intimates that they were "received on condition that the Church beyond the sea (Europe) should be consulted for its confirmation." Taking then, the authority of a Roman Catholic historian, it appears that during the first four centuries the Jewish canon alone was received in Christendom. The decision of the Council of Laodicea, omitting the Apocrypha, was received by the universal church. But the Council of Carthage in Africa decided only for themselves, and besides they wished to consult churches in other countries on this subject. At a

second African council, held in 418, the Apocrypha was taken into the Canonical catalogue, but they were so far from determining absolutely on this subject that they thought proper to confer with the churches in Italy. It remained for the Council of Trent in 1545, authoritatively and definitely to add the uninspired Apocrypha to the Word of God, and to pronounce its anathema upon all who do not hold it as sacred and canonical. Yet we are often asked, and this too in the language of defiance, to show that the Christian church previously to Luther ever held a different Canon !

SECONDLY, Protestantism rejects an unwritten word; it rejects all oral tradition as a rule of faith: It denies the necessity of an unwritten word to supplement the deficiencies of the written word: It denies the existence of an unwritten word, and it has in vain demanded the proof of its existence in the Catholic Church. Where lie these oral traditions? where is the evidence of their inspiration? Do they teach any thing different from the preaching and writings of the Great Teacher and His Apostles? Then I reject them, and I say "ye make the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." But Protestantism goes farther, it denies the possibility, for any practical, authoritative purpose, of an unwritten word. Take (e. g.) the history of the Old World: Primitive religious truth had to pass through few hands, and yet how soon did the world forget the institution of the Sabbath, and the doctrine of God's Unity. What has oral tradition done for the descendants of Noah? I need only refer to those nations which in the present day are destitute of the Gospel. But a

Roman Catholic friend might be disposed to ask whether we are not commanded to "hold the traditions which have been taught, whether by word or epistle?" Yes, I grant that the Thessalonians were thus taught, and I have no hesitation in declaring my willingness to accept these traditions or deliverances of the Apostle's mouth, if the Church of Rome can produce them, and furnish demonstrative evidence that they are truly what they profess to be. I cannot proceed to the next step in the discussion, without inviting your attention to the opinion of two of the Fathers on the comparative value of the written and unwritten word. Theophilus Alexandrinus, who died in 412, says plainly, "It is part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures." Jerome, who died eight years after Theophilus, writes thus in his controversy with Helvidius: "As we deny not those things which are written, so we refuse those things which are not written. That God was born of a virgin, we believe, because we read it; that Mary was married after, we believe not, because we do not read it."

THIRDLY, Protestantism rejects the authority of the Fathers as a rule of faith. They were but men, fallible men; they aspired not to inspiration; they were in the habit rather, as we have already seen, of appealing to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as their rule of faith. Protestants esteem the Fathers, many of them at least, as men of piety and learning, and reject not their testimony when it agrees with the teaching of the Scriptures; but it is as necessary to establish the Scriptural authority of the doctrines of the Fathers by

an appeal to the Word of God, as it is to establish the scripturalness of the teaching of our own divines, by an appeal to the same standard. We spoke just now of immutability as an essential attribute of truth: does the teaching of the Fathers, or their exposition of the Bible possess this attribute? Is there no contradiction amongst them? Is there even a general consistency of opinion? By no means. Not only is one Father opposed to another Father, but not unfrequently to himself. The creed of Pope Pius IV. contains the following vow or oath, which every Minister of the Church of Rome takes upon himself: "Nor will I ever take or interpret the Scriptures otherwise than by the unanimous consent of the Fathers." But who ever found the Fathers unanimous in their interpretation of the Word of God? It would surprise if not amuse you, were I to quote their differences of opinion even on that simple passage of Scripture," the Lord's Prayer." But I have only time to refer to their various interpretations of a passage which is considered of some importance by our Roman Catholic brethren and lest it should be surmised that my own representations of the views of the Fathers might be swayed by previously formed opinions, I shall give you an epitome of these views furnished by one of the most learned writers, and eminent authorities in the entire Roman Catholic community, Cardinal Bellarmine. The passage occurs in the 3rd chapter of 1st Corinthians, and is thus rendered in the Douay version: "According to the grace of God that is given to me as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon.

But let every

man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay but that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward; if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

The Cardinal first enumerates the difficulties of the passage, and then furnishes an epitome of the differences of the Fathers :

"The difficulties of this passage are five in number. 1. What is to be understood by the builders? 2. What is to be understood by gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble? 3. What is to be understood by the day of the Lord. 4. What is to be understood by the fire, of which it is said, that in the day of the Lord it shall prove every one's work? 5. What is to be understood by the fire, of which it is said, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire? When these things are explained, the passage will be clear.

[ocr errors]

"The first difficulty, therefore, is, who are the architects who build upon the foundation? The blessed Augustine, in his book on faith and works, c. 16, and in his Enchiridion,' c. 68, and elsewhere, thinks that all Christians are here called by the apostle architects, and that all build upon the foundation of the faith either good or bad works. Chrysostom, Theodoret,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »