It is very easy to say that
Catholics admit the authority of the Church; and that Protestants allow of no
rule but the written Word of God. Such a statement appears, at first sight
simple; but, if any one will take the pains to analyze it, he will find it
fraught with considerable difficulties.
For instance, what is the meaning
of the Word of God, o the Scriptures, being “the only rule of faith?” Does it
mean, that it is to be the rule for the Church, or for its individual members?
Does it mean, that public declarations or the symbols of faith are based upon
the Word of God? or, to borrow the language of some ancient philosophers who
used to say, that each man is a microcosm or a little world—shall we consider
him likewise, as a little Church, with power of examining and deciding upon
matters of religion? Does it mean, that there is an individual light promised,
or granted, by God, so that each one is under the guidance and infallible
authority of the Holy Ghost; or, that, abandoned to those lights which he may
possess, from his own learning or acquirements, his peculiar measure of mind
and understanding is to be his rule and guide in drawing his faith from the
Word of God? But, to show that these difficulties are not imaginary, let us
examine the Articles of the Church of England, in which its rule of faith is
laid down; articles which all the clergy must subscribe to, and teach as their
belief. In the Sixth Article it is said that “Holy Scripture containeth all
things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as
an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” In
this passage there is not one word about the individual right of any one to
judge for himself—it only teaches that no one is to be charged with the belief
of any doctrine, no one can be required to give his adhesion to any article,
which is not contained in the Word of God. But it is here evident, that the
application of the rule is placed in other hands; that it is intended to
prevent some one, not named, from exacting belief beyond a certain point; it is
a limitation of the power to require submission to the teaching of some
authority. That this authority is the Church there can be no doubt, if we
compare the Twentieth Article. There it is said, that, “The Church hath power
to ordain rites and ceremonies, and authority in the controversies of faith;
and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to God’s
Word written; neither may it so expound any passage as to be repugnant to
another.”
This Article seems further to
increase the complexity and confusion of the rule of faith, as laid down by the
Established Church. It says, in the first place, that the Church has authority,
in matters of faith; and then, that the Church cannot prescribe anything
contrary to Scripture. But, if it be determined, in these solemn terms that the
Church shall not enforce doctrines, nor define systems, contrary to the Word of
God, the very proposition recognizes the necessity of a superior authority to
control its decisions. For, if we should say, that, in this country, the judges
of the land have authority in matters of law, but yet shall not be allowed to
decree anything contrary to the statutes; I ask, you, is it not necessarily
implied in the very enunciation of that proposition, that an authority
somewhere exists, capable of judging whether those magistrates have contravened
that rule, and of preventing their continuing so to act. When, therefore, it
is, in like manner, affirmed that the Church has authority in matters of faith,
yet a rule is given whereby the justice of its decisions is to be determined,
and no exemption from error if allowed to it, it is no less implied that,
besides the Church, there is some superior authority to prevent its acting
contrary to the code that has been put into its hands. Now, what authority is
this, and where does it reside? It is that each one has to judge for himself,
whether the Church is contradicting the express doctrines of Scripture, and,
consequently, is each person thus constituted judge over the decisions of his
Church? If so, this is the most anomalous form of society that ever was
imagined. For, if each individual, singly in himself, has greater authority
than the whole collectively—for the Church is a congregation formed of its
members—the authority vested in that whole is void and nugatory.
Wherever there is limitation of
jurisdiction, there must be superior control: and if the Church is not
to be obeyed when it teaches anything contrary to Scripture, there are only two
alternatives,--either that limitation supposes an impossibility of its so
doing, or it implies the possible case of the Church being lawfully disobeyed.
The first would be the Catholic doctrine, and at open variance with the grounds
on which the Protestant Churches justify their original separation. The
Catholic, too, will say that the Church cannot require anything to be
believed that is contrary to God’s written word; but then the word which I
pronounce emphatically is taken by him literally: the Church cannot teach
any such doctrine, because God’s word is pledged that she shall not. The
superior control exists in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But if the Church,
not being infallible, may teach things contrary to Scripture, who shall judge
it, and decide between it and those whose obedience it extracts? “If the salt
lose its savour, with what shall it be salted?” In other words, if there
be a tribunal of appear from this fallible Church, where does it exists; in
those persons is its representation vested? Surely these are simple and obvious
enquiries, resulting from this ill-conceived theory of Church authority. (Nicholas
Patrick Wiseman, “Lecture II: On the Protestant Rule of Faith,” in Lectures
on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, 2 vols.
[3d ed.; London: Charles Dolman, 1855], 1:28-31)
