“THIS question has been put to me twice in, my life, both times by Roman Catholics—, one, Mr. B— of A ——; the other, Monsignor Capel, at Pau.
“I leave the fact without comment—it speaks for itself. The answer given by the Catechism of Christian doctrine, approved for the use of the faithful in all the dioceses of England and Wales, signed by Cardinal Wiseman and all the bishops, is as follows:
“‘By the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church.’”
The writer of the above passed on the question to another, whose reply we append. The question lies at the root of the whole matter of the claims of the Church of Rome, and hence its importance at this time.
ED.
~~~
“It is evident that faith must be founded on the testimony of God, otherwise it is not God who is believed. Further, it must be founded on His testimony alone. I must believe, because God Himself has spoken, or I do not believe God. ‘Whoso,’ says John the Baptist of the blessed Lord— ‘Whoso has received His testimony, has set to his seal that God is true.’ So Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness—faith was in the testimony of God. Such then practically is faith. It is the soul’s reception, by Divine power, of the testimony of God; who is thus known by it, as He has revealed Himself, and in whose presence consequently it walks; God having graciously revealed Himself as a Saviour, so that it is in peace in the presence of the Holy One, and in communion with Him.
He who does not admit the authority of God’s inspired Word is an infidel. An R. C. tells me I cannot know it is the Bible or the Word of God without the authority of the Church. Now mark that. For if God has written a book, and addressed it to men in general, or to those called Christians, His doing so puts them under the responsibility of receiving and submitting to what He has so addressed. What God has so addressed to them obliges their conscience. If not, He has failed in the object He proposed.
He was not able to put those He addressed under the responsibility of receiving what He had said, if, as the R. C. says, the ordinary Christian cannot know that it is the Word of God, and is not able to receive it as such.
Of two things one is true—either he who says so denies it himself to be the revealed Word; or he asserts that God’s Word is not by itself binding on those to whom it is sent; that God has failed in so writing it as to render it obligatory on the conscience of the reader to receive it as such. Now either of these is infidelity and the common ground taken by infidels; yet this is the ground always taken by the R. C., and it as clearly infidel ground. For mark this, if the authority of the Church is requisite in order to a man’s believing the Scripture and receiving it as God’s Word, then God has not spoken so as to bind the conscience and make faith obligatory without someone adding to His authority so as to make it to be received.
What kind of Church it can be, which can give to God’s Word an authority over the conscience and oblige men to believe it, which that Word had not, though God spoke it, I leave a man who reverences God to consider.
It must be more competent, its authority more obligatory than that of God Himself, for it says such a book is God’s Word and you must receive it as such; and yet, though it be God’s Word, it could not have that authority over the conscience before.
I am not speaking of a greater competency to instruct—a greater knowledge of its meaning where all own it as divine—but of what gives it a divine authority over the soul. It has not this (though it be God’s Word), according to the R. C., without receiving it from the testimony of the Church.
The Church—that is, certain men—have told me certain things, and I am bound to believe them; Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, &c., have told me certain things as inspired men, and I cannot tell whether I am to believe them or not! If so, then the apostles have not the same claim over my conscience and faith as the former men. It is in vain to tell me the former compose the Church, and that it has God’s authority. Had not the inspired apostles God’s authority? Did not what they say bind the conscience? It is not a question of interpreting. The question is, Has what they say authority over my conscience, so that I am bound to receive it as God’s Word and believe it? Paul writes an epistle to the Church, say at Corinth. Were they bound to receive it as God’s Word? If so, am I? If I am not, they were not; and note, they were the Church; that is the Church has to receive the word of the apostle, not to pronounce on it. Woe be to them if they did not. Woe be to me if I do not.
This, then, is the simple, yet solemn assertion of the believer in the truth and wisdom and glory of God—that if God gives a testimony of Himself man is bound to believe it. If not, he is guilty of despising the testimony of God; and the day of judgment will merely show that it is not God who has failed in giving the testimony so as to bind the conscience and oblige to faith, but that the man’s sinful heart has deceived him.
Look at the creation. There is a testimony God has given of Himself. Man is guilty if he does not see God in it. There are many difficulties, many things he cannot explain; but the testimony is sufficient to condemn those who do not believe in God the Creator.
When the blessed Lord appeared, many cavils might be and were raised by infidel hearts; but He could say, ‘If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.’
So, too, with reference to the testimony of God through the gospel in general— ‘He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son.’ Such an one was guilty—guilty of infidelity.
J. N. D.”