Precisely here is the point on which attention will, perhaps, very strongly he concentrated—not so much the question whether the inerrancy of the Scriptures is necessary for their revelation of the truth—but the very necessity of a standard at all, such as the Scriptures are thought to provide. For adherents of Biblical literary science, enamored of their new discovery, while claiming, many of them, that it makes the Bible for them a new book, do not perchance perceive that in their chosen course they are fast drifting on to another momentous question—what the truth is—whether a divinely given, fixed, guaranteed “faith once for all delivered unto the saints,” or a matter of flux and change, of humanly acquired discovery, requiring, as time goes on, that “re-statement of Christian doctrine” which so many to-day even are agitating for! The statement of the Encyclical as to “logically leading to atheism” may in this become a prediction justified by event. Without a doubt serious consideration confirms the thought that such is the shore towards which the current sets, although what we see now be no more than a loosening off from the moorings. This ought not to be dismissed as unduly pessimistic. It must not be imagined that a limited area is all that has come under the disintegrating influence of “higher criticism.” Every branch of Western Christendom has been affected by it, and by what is probably the majority of representative teachers throughout Protestantism the only real alternative to it, the true and divine inspiration of the Scriptures, is no longer honestly contended for. That it should make its appearance in the Roman Catholic Church is not at all surprising; but its alarming progress in a few years within such a conservative body is remarkable, and testifies to the attractiveness and power of infidelity over those who surrender to the mere intellectualism of our times.
The intolerant attitude of the Vatican towards it is not surprising either. The Roman Catholic faith stands for a conception of things with which the new spirit can have nothing in common. The one recognizes authority, the other the rejection of it. The nature of the authority in question can be taken into account later, but the present point is that Rome is based upon the recognition of an authoritative standard of truth, upon dogma, to use a common phrase. A famous statement of Harnack— “Dogmatic Christianity, in the strict sense of the word, is Catholic” —would be just as true were the first and last terms transposed. Newman, the convert to Rome, became such, no doubt, because dominated by the thought that external authority was absolutely essential, and assuming that an infallible church provided it. “Dogma was the fundamental principle of my religion. I could enter into no other sort of religion." There is this in common then between Latin Christianity and true Christianity, that in each, truth is conceived to be absolute and unchangeable, capable of being presented in complete and perfect objective form. Wherein they differ is that true believers find this objective testimony presented to their faith in the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are perfect and sufficient in themselves, through the Holy Spirit's power, to reveal God's mind and will; whereas Rome teaches that in addition to the Bible the tnagisterium, or teaching authority of the church is needed, not only to interpret the Scriptures, assuming them to be obscure, but also to authenticate them to us, denying their authority, apart from the sanction of “the pillar and ground of the truth.''
Rome is right then in its conception of the truth as being a definite, guaranteed objective testimony, a “depositum fidei” as it has been called; wrong, essentially wrong, in claiming for the voice of the church the share in that agency which she does. The authority it calls for allegiance to is a usurped authority. This seems to be a fundamental principle in this “Mystery, Babylon the Great” that truths are more refused than rejected, less denied than perverted. Orthodox, yet infidel she is, paradoxical as it may seem. Rome, it has often been remarked, is comparatively free from heterodoxy as to the great facts of Christianity, the Atonement, Trinity, Incarnation, etc. Yet in the case of every one of these truths their applicability to the human soul is annulled through her adulterations. So as to the truth itself, both the need of a divinely given standard, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, she holds and is ready to contend for; but to what account does she turn their admission when made? What rebuke does she bestow on her own children who forsake them? They are “rebels” who aim at the discovery of the truth “apart from the authority of the church and of theology!”
And this it is necessary to be reminded of in the ensuing controversy. There is much to admire, perchance, in the conduct of a Pope, who has the courage to so expose and denounce the infidelity as to Scripture in the ranks of his own communion; and at first sight much to gratify the believer in the publication of the decisions of the Biblical commission already alluded to, and in such steps as his authorization of a revision of the Vulgate. But, rooted in the system itself, there is infidelity of another complexion, with which such action, praiseworthy in itself, is still quite in keeping. Essentially, Rome is a system of error, and no true friend or guardian of the truth at any time. Her antagonism to it has been long and marked, and from the testimony of scripture itself will end only when she herself does. There must be no mistake. Whether the present firm attitude of the Vatican is a genuine stand for the truth as conceived by one who is faithful to what he knows of it, or the more likely reiteration of the apostate system's claim for the implicit obedience of her subjects in presence of a rival system of error, one thing is clear—that Rome at the bottom can never be anything but an enemy of God's truth. The apostasy in which Christendom ends, and to which events hasten, has ample room and accommodation for both elements—the haughty claim to be the sole and infallible depositary of the truth, and the infidelity that denies such a thing as divinely revealed truth altogether. Incompatible as their different pretensions are, this they have in common, that they both exalt themselves against God and His infallible word. We know also that the system that now rejects and casts forth the incipient “atheism” appearing in her midst will one day be repaid in full by the same “atheism” fully developed, for “the ten horns shall hate the whore, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire” (Revelation 17:1616And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)).
Critical indeed are our times. It is not so long since one remarked that “one of the worst signs of the present day, and which is observable everywhere, is that deliverance from superstition and error is not now by means of positive truth,” but that “liberalism is simply destructive,” and who stated his belief that “the manifest conflict of the near future would be between superstition and infidelity,” that “the opposition to Popery will be infidel not protestant.” In truth they pretty well divide the camp.
Happy the believer who, through the grace of God is “without the camp,” and, possessed of that which neither enjoys, has the blessed assurance of possessing God's own truth in God's own word—at once a direct and abiding communication. This it is alone to which the believer must stand, in the face of opposition as in the midst of declension. Both are present in that controversy to which attention has been drawn. Were it a mere wrangle over the political relations, or even the theological status of the Romish church, it might be left unnoticed. But the nature of the case makes it of serious interest to every child of God, as a striking instance of what is abroad, and as a solemn feature of the character which antagonism to the truth of God is now rapidly assuming. The truth of God we must hold fast.
Theology may drift; creeds and confessions no longer suffice to hold mere profession to ancient anchorage grounds; a tide of questioning criticism may flow around, submerging shores even the most secluded from ordinary currents, its dissolving and disintegrating influence permeating every system of doctrine man has framed; and thus many, concerning the faith, make shipwreck. But, holding fast the precious word, admitting its claims, accepting its light, obeying its directions, we have abundant assurance of its reliability and unchangeableness. J. T.
(Concluded from page 128)
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.