Romanism the Natural Development of Christianity.

By Francis E. Abbot.

"It is necessary here to guard against a twofold error. There are some who perceive in every new mode of representing Divine truth, in every change of phraseology, an alteration or corruption of the doctrine of the Church; "they erroneously suppose that none but Biblical terms are to be introduced into dogmatic theology, and would make the history of doctrines a mere history of corruptions. There are others who will admit nothing but a progressive development of the true doctrine within the pale of the Church, and seem to forget that disorder and disease often make their appearance in a strong and healthy body. True science has to consider both these conditions; religion, too, advances, comes to a stand, and goes back: it has its excellences and its defects, its stages of purity and its stages of corruption. Thus it would be incorrect to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, of original sin, the sacraments, etc., because those terms are not used in Scripture; but it is our duty to examine whether anything extraneous has been mixed up with thorn, and how far the development of a doctrine may become dangerous to the truth of the gospel."

Hagenbach. Compendium of the History of Doctrines, Vol. I, p. 8. [Ed. 1850.]

The distinguished author of "A History of the Hebrew Monarchy," and other liberal works of the highest reputation, Professor Francis W. Newman, of England, has been so kind as to write for The Index a letter of considerable length on a question of great importance to the liberal cause, namely, whether Roman Catholicism is a corruption or a development of Christianity. [This letter is contained in full in The Index, No. 123.] I am exceedingly glad that this question has been treated so ably by one who is respected on both sides of the Atlantic for his scholarship and his character alike. So much depends on the answer to be given to that question in determining the befitting attitude of liberals towards Christianity, and so difficult is it to interest the public in a question which is seemingly (but only seemingly) remote from immediate practical issues, that the publication of such a letter from such a source can scarcely fail to awaken a great deal of profitable thought in the public mind. Prof. Newman's article is, in form, a criticism of some statements contained in the "Truths for the Times;" and I think he will not consider me as failing in the respect which is due page 11 to his eminent services, and which I most unfeignedly entertain, if I attempt to sustain by argument the position I have there simply stated. In fact, I shall thus best prove the correctness of his own belief, when he says:—"I am sure you desire that every one will speak his mind out." There is nothing that I desire more than that; and, with sincere thanks to Prof. Newman for frankly calling in question an opinion for which I have been quite sufficiently exclaimed against, but of which I have until now seen no thoughtful examination, I will reciprocate by speaking my own mind as frankly as he has spoken his.

Before approaching the main question, I wish to reply briefly to a few minor points in the article under consideration.

"I think there is danger," says Prof. Newman, "that you may dogmatize, as in the past other religionists have dogmatized." Yes, there is danger of it. Every one is in danger of dogmatizing who holds strong convictions. But since dogmatism is simply assertion without reason, he who avowedly bases his convictions on reason alone, and never shuts his ear to any objections that reason may urge, is no dogmatist. The "Truths for the Times" is a condensed summary of results, unaccompanied with arguments or processes; and one who does not perceive or appreciate this fact may naturally think the statement dogmatic. Every one of the "Truths for the Times," however, is the product of close study and patient reflection, and is built on what I regard as solid reasons; as I hope to show in the case of the opinion now controverted.

"Moreover," says Prof. Newman again, "it crosses my mind (but I say it diffidently and under correction), that the element called odium theologieum may unawares sway you. Of course you understand this phrase. Theologians are charged with hating most those who, without entire agreement, come nearest to them, and endure more easily an extreme enemy than an almost friend. So, it is my surmise, you ill endure Unitarian Christians, and are better inclined to admire Romanists."

Not to prolong a merely personal statement, which of course can have very little interest to the public, I would say briefly that this "surmise" is incorrect. I was born and bred among Unitarian Christians, and have formed many close and highly valued friendships among them: and I have yet to learn that a page 12 single one of these friendships has been broken, or even cooled, by anything I have ever thought, felt, said, or done concerning Unitarianism. True, I have said and published severe things about Unitarianism as a phase of thought; but I have always remembered what too many forget, that the thought and the thinker are never to be confounded. Surely, I "hate" no one; and I refuse to have "enemies," if it takes two to keep up enmity. I believe that every one of my Unitarian friends acquits me of all odium theologicum towards the Unitarians, and does me the justice to believe that what I say concerning Unitarianism has no personal application whatever. There my duty towards my friends ends, and another duty—the duty every man owes to the truth—begins. In the terrible struggle between the North and the South which so many of us have cause to remember with grief to the end of life, I believe that the long protraction of the war, with its awful waste of precious blood, was caused less by the determined and open warfare of the rebel officers than by the half-heartedness and equivocal allegiance of many of our own officers. Not till the conduct of the war was put into the hands of men who believed in smiting the rebellion with the edge rather than the flat of their swords, without a particle of tenderness for the rebel cause, did the victory become ours. So it is in this new warfare between Christianity and Freedom. More hindrance and positive harm results to the liberal cause from the intellectual blindness and languid zeal of its "almost friends" than from the most desperate efforts of its open foes. That is why I "ill endure" Unitarianism. I want to see the issue made plain, that the conflict may be short and sharp. I want to see the liberals on one side and the Christians on the other, that the victory of Freedom may be speedy and complete, politically, socially, intellectually, and spiritually. From the Unitarians, not only from those who are personal friends, but from those also who know me only by name and who hate my views most cordially, I do not remember any treatment that has been other than courteous and kind,—very often generous in the extreme, as once in the case of Rev. Dr. Bellows. There is no body of men and women in this country more delightful to associate with than the Unitarians; and it was with great pain that I found myself obliged at last to withdraw from their associate fellowship, in order that I might not be false to my convictions. Unpalatable page 13 as my strictures upon Unitarianism have been since that day, I believe that in their hearts the Unitarians themselves respect me for making them, and think that, with my views of truth and duty, I could do no less. In every way that I can, by argument, appeal, or sarcasm, I mean to do my best to show to the world how utterly untenable is the Unitarian position; I mean to use every legitimate weapon to expose every attempt at compromise between Christianity and Freedom; and I mean to do it without malice, without unfairness, without anything that shall intentionally wound the feelings of a single man, woman, or child. If this is to be imbued with odium theologicum, I must plead guilty to the charge; but I believe that no open and honorable, even if mistaken, warfare on error and superstition ought to be thus characterized. I have said, however, more than I intended on this point, and will now at once pass to the main thesis of Prof. Newman's article.

The general ground here assumed is that Roman Catholicism is the natural and logical development of the Christian Confession.

The ground assumed by my honored critic is that Roman Catholicism is a corruption—he does not precisely specify of what, but the context shows that he means—of the cardinal teachings of Jesus.

Now you will notice that Prof. Newman does not deny the proposition I make, but another one which is by no means identical with it. He does not argue to the same point. I affirmed that Catholicism is the natural outgrowth of the Christian Confession—the confession that Jesus is the Christ of God, the divinely appointed King and Savior of men. Prof. Newman denies that Catholicism is a natural outgrowth of the cardinal teachings of Jesus. I refer only to the Messianic claim of Jesus; he refers apparently to his other teachings.

There are only two ways of escaping my conclusion. It must be shown that the Messianic claim, whether made by Jesus or for him, is not the page 14 great fundamental idea of Christianity; or else it must be shown that this claim is not logically developed into Catholicism. My ground is that the Christian Confession is the very foundation of Christianity, and that this Confession is naturally and logically developed into Roman Catholicism. If my ground is falsely taken, it must be either because the Christian Confession is not the foundation of Christianity, or else because it is not logically developed into Catholicism. I cannot see that Prof. Newman has appreciated my position,—much less overthrown it.

If I correctly judge my critic's thought, not only in the present article, but also in his other writings (especially in his fine essay on the "True Temptation of Jesus, published in The Index, No. 99), he admits that Jesus himself did sooner or later claim to be the Christ, the Messiah, but that this claim was incidental and at variance with his "cardinal teachings"—a mere "weak point" or "inconsistency,"—in fact, the "temptation" to which he yielded, and the yielding to which entirely changed the whole character of his work as a religious teacher. But even if this change took place, and if we are to concede that at first Jesus was purely a moral reformer and was tempted to his own fall by the ambition almost forced upon him by his followers, this would not at all affect my position that the Messianic claim, once made, became the foundation of Christianity. It is of very little consequence how the claim was made, or when, or by whom—of very little consequence whether Jesus made it himself, or whether his disciples misunderstood him to have made it. The fact remains that the claim itself became the great, central, dominant idea of the Christian religion, naturally created the Christian theology and the Christian Church, and necessarily led to the development of the Roman Catholic hierarchy under existing circumstances. That is the really important point. If the Christian religion, as a great fact and power in human history, owed its existence primarily to the Messianic idea, and if this idea naturally and logically led to the formation of the great Roman Catholic organization, with its creed and ceremonial and priesthood and pope, then it is true that Catholicism is itself Christianity in its most perfect form, and that all Protestant sects are merely so many branches, dying but still green, lopped off from the parent tree. Whether Jesus foresaw all the remote consequences of his claim to be the Christ, is not of the slightest import- page 15 ance. I do not blame him for it or its results. He planted the acorn, and the oak grew up in due time. Our concern is with the tree, not with its planter. So far as Christianity itself is concerned, the veritable character and teaching of its founder are of only biographical interest; what his own age believed about him, and what effect this belief had on succeeding ages, and what was the actual development of it among the living forces of history, and what are its character and influence as it exists to day under the venerated name of Christianity,—these are the real questions that concern mankind here and now. The moment it becomes clear that Christianity has always been identical' with submission to a personal Lord, and can never without destruction be emancipated from this submission, that moment will the eyes of all free men and women be opened to the necessary and baneful influence of Christianity, in all its forms, on the natural development of mankind; and the beginning of the end will have come.

That the Christian Confession is the great, essential doctrine of Christianity, and that it necessarily creates at last institutions identical with or analogous to the Roman Catholic Church,—these are the fundamental points I maintain; and I am very sorry that Prof. Newman has not addressed himself to these points, rather than to points aside from the main question. Doubtless much can be said in opposition to my opinion, especially by so keen, thoughtful, and highly educated a disputant as he; and I should be much gratified to learn his views on the real question at issue, and to publish them in The Index. Meanwhile, I will comment very briefly on various points in his present article, premising that I do so because of their intrinsic interest rather than because of any direct bearing on my own disputed thesis.

There is no true contrast, he argues, between corruption and development; the same process may be both one and the other at the same time. This is urged as if I had taken a contrary position; but I did not. The natural development of an organism, for instance, is not a corruption; but the natural development of a disease, as of a cancer, is the corruption and ultimate death of the organism itself. Prof. Newman evidently intends to suggest that the Messianic claim was a cancer in the body of Christianity, and was developed ruinously into the Catholic Church, which thus appears as at the same time a natural development and a corruption too. I respect- page 16 fully reply, however, that this is to beg the question at issue, which turns on the truth or falsity of my statement that the Christian Confession is the foundation of Christianity. Is the Messianic claim the organism or the cancer? That is the question. My critic assumes without discussion that it is the latter; but this is the very thing to be discussed. I have by no means "chosen to select the weak points of good and great men, and logically develop them;" on the contrary, I have selected the Messianic claim because it is the strongest and most pronounced feature of the Christian gospel, and have passed over unnoticed all the minor and derivative features. If this claim is indeed to be regarded as a mere incidental error, a "weak point" of the Christian gospel, an "inconsistency," I must respectfully insist on the evidences of an opinion which would be rejected unanimously and indignantly by every Christian church on the face of the globe.

That real corruptions have occurred in the history of Christianity analogous to the diseases of an organic body, I do not deny; and many of the practices of the Church of Rome are undoubtedly of this description. Transubstantiation, Mariolatry, celibacy, the confessional, and so forth, are in one sense corruptions, since they have been fearfully abused; yet in another sense they are legitimate consequences or remote corollaries of strictly logical deductions from the Messianic claim. Transubstantiation is only a sensualization of the Christian idea that the soul's eternal life is dependent on the death of Jesus as the universal Savior or Christ. The worship of the "Mother of God" as immaculate follows naturally enough from the idea that God was born in the flesh from a woman, who must needs have been miraculously holy to be thus honored. The doctrine of the Incarnation and of the Trinity follows naturally from the idea that all souls are saved by the death of one man, who must needs have been God also to do such a stupendous work. And so on. The Catholic faith is one vast network of affiliated thoughts; and the Catholic hierarchy is a most wonderfully ingenious organization for the propagation of this faith. To perceive the logic of either, however, one must contemplate the intricate system from the heliocentric stand-point of the Christian Confession. From that false fountain head, what but a continuous si ream of falsehood could flow? But the law of intellectual gravitation—of logic—must determine the stream's page 17 channel. Chaos would come again, were it otherwise.

It is true, as Prof. Newman declares, that the primitive Church and the Catholic Church present many points of difference. But this fact tells in my favor. The one could not otherwise have been developed out of the other. The differences are only those of the same organism at different stages of growth. Paul, it is true, summoned men to "freedom" as he understood it—freedom from the old ritual of Judaism; but it was not freedom in any modern sense. It is not true that "the Roman Church invites us to become spiritual slaves," for its invitation is still, as always, in the name of freedom. But neither Paul nor the Pope really invites to freedom, but only to a change of servitude. The "yoke of Christ" is a yoke too heavy for any freeman's neck; and this yoke from the beginning Christianity summons all its followers to bear.

I am surprised, I confess, to see so inadvertent a statement as the following made by so learned a man as Prof. Newman;—"These two texts, 'Hear the Church,' and 'Thou art Peter,' are the foundation stones of the Roman Catholic Church." If this were true, Catholicism, like Protestantism, would rest its whole claim on the Bible; whereas, in point of fact, it rests the authority of the Bible itself on Tradition. The Catholic Church is far too shrewd to commit suicide by conceding the Protestant doctrine of the supreme authority of the Bible. When it condescends to urge these or any other texts in defence of its claims, it is only as an argumentum ad hominem—as a turning of the enemy's guns against himself. No—it haughtily demands submission from the world in its own name, with no credentials but its own assertion of a Divine Authority from God. I am the more surprised at the statement in question because Prof. Newman immediately afterwards admits, to quote his own words, that "Rome does not demand belief in God or Christ or indeed in any definite doctrines, but only belief in the Church." This supreme self-assertion of the Church is but the reflection of that of her Lord, who rested his Messianic claim on no texts or arguments, but rather on the Divine Authority of God. Representing him on earth, how could she do otherwise? What more striking proof than this could be asked for my statement that Rome rigorously carries out the logic of the Christian Confession?

I cannot admit that the religion taught in the Christian Scriptures is a purely "personal one. The great burden of the gospel was the speedy approach of the "kingdom of Heaven." What was it? The simple purification of the individual character? Far from it. It was the universal reign of the Messiah, the establishment of a new empire of Heaven on earth; and although Jesus proclaimed, as the fundamental laws of his kingdom, a moral code in many respects of unsurpassed excellence, the gospels never lose sight of its public character. Here was sown the seed of that "corporate religion" of Rome which claims universal dominion and appears to Prof. Newman so irreconcilable with the "personal religion" of the primitive Church. Why, one of the first acts of the primitive Church was to abolish all private property, and lay the combined wealth of the whole body of believers at the feet of the apostles. For withholding only a part of their property from these more than bishops, Ananias and Sapphira are said to have been struck dead by God. Did Rome ever require such total surrender of individual rights to her "corporate religion?" She might inherit, but she could not in this point better, the instruction of the early Church.

Again, the claim of holding the keys of heaven, made by Rome, seems to Prof. Newman to have no logic in it, because Jesus, in promising the keys to Peter, said nothing of Peter's successors. Rut he himself quotes the Apocalypse to show that Jesus declared the keys to be in his own possession. If, then, the Church is the true representative of Jesus on the earth, Peter being only the first chief representative of the Church, the claim seems impregnable in logic. The Church did not die when Peter died, nor, on its theory, were the keys his private property; they passed merely into other hands, like the crown,—"The King is dead—long liye the King!" All turns on the reasonableness of supposing that Jesus is still represented on the earth; and this follows naturally from the Messianic theory. If he is still King of this earth while invisible in the heavens, his authority must be delegated, or else it vanishes into nothingness, practically, in the administration of human affairs. Hence the Church, the priesthood, the pope, are the natural consequence of the Messianic idea in history.

Lastly, reference is made to "one grand and cardinal doctrine, characteristic of the whole early Church, page 19 which the Catholic Church has rejected. It was the kernel and heart of Christianity with James, Paul, and John—the belief in the speedy return of Jesus in the clouds of heaven, to set tip the kingdom of God on earth and overthrow all the heathen royalties." But has the Catholic Church ever rejected that doctrine? Has it no doctrine of a Last Judgment, with the Christ in the clouds and all the paraphernalia of the "second coming?" Has it no solemn Judgment Hymn—

"Dies iras, dies ilia,
Solvet sœclum in favilla.
Teste David cum Sibylla"

Has it abandoned any part of that old belief, except the intense expectation of its immediate fulfilment? That fearful dream still haunts the imaginations of the faithful, holds its place in the creed and the catechism, and remains still the "kernel and heart of Christianity" with the whole Catholic Church. The fear of the unannounced approach of the Last Judgment has always existed, and still exists, in the Church of Rome; and modern Millerism, which has its weekly organ to day in the World's Crisis, published in Boston, is only a Protestant degeneration of it. Towards the close of the tenth century, a universal apprehension existed that the end of the world and the second advent of Jesus would occur in the year A. D. 1000; and in that century ecclesiastical endowments frequently began with—"Appropin quante mundi termino [the end of the world being now at hand]." In fact, the intense terror that then prevailed gave a great stimulus to the building of the grand cathedrals of Europe, those at Strassburg, Mayence, Treves, Speier, Worms, and so forth, being erected at that period. The Catholic Church lias never "rejected" that doctrine of the second advent of Jesus in the clouds of heaven; and it teaches to-day that this awful event may happen at any moment"

I care not what doctrine of Christianity is selected,—it will be found in its unadulterated form in Catholicism, and Catholicism alone. All that Protestantism, as a phase of Christianity, has done is to weaken and disintegrate the great Christian structure until in Unitarianism scarcely a fragment of it remains. So far from "denying that of all Christian sects the Unitarians come the nearest to the Church of Jerusalem in its general doctrine," I said explicitly in page 20 paragraph twenty-nine of the Fifty Affirmations that "Liberal Christianity [Unitarianism] . . . . is a return to the Christian Confession in its crudest and least developed form"—that is, as held by the primitive Church. But this very Christian Confession they are now evaporating away into a vague and general admission that Jesus is their "leader" in some incomprehensible sense—what, they do not themselves know, or, if they know, cannot tell.

The views which I advocate of this whole subject are based rather on the genetic connection and historical evolution of ideas, rather than on partial analyses or textual criticisms. No one can recognize the relationship of a fallen brick, taken by itself, to the architectural design of a great building; neither can any one recognize the relationship of the separate doctrines or practices of Rome, taken by themselves, to the general system of Christianity. The only way to do justice to any system is to study it as a whole, to trace out the connection of the parts in this whole, and to go over again in thought the actual process of growth realized in history. To any one who will take the trouble to do this, I think my view will seem the only philosophical one that can be taken of Romanism.

Even to the ordinary mind, it must surely be enough to arrest attention and compel a revision of all former opinions, when the questions are plainly put—"How comes it that, if Catholicism is the cancer and not the man, the history of the man for fifteen hundred years was only the history of the cancer? How comes it that the cancer survived after eating up the man? How comes it that Christianity has been nearly nineteen centuries in the world, and yet was never understood until the last of them arrived? How comes it that the whole world was fooled so long? How comes it that the great intellects of Christian history have always accepted substantially the Catholic theology, even while protesting against the Catholic hierarchy? How comes it that the tendency of all Protestant sects is towards the gradual relaxation and abandonment of the ancient doctrines of Christianity, as if to detach oneself from the Catholic ecclesiasticism were tantamount to detaching oneself at last from the Catholic theology? How comes it that to day the Protestant Church is throughout the world a mere 'hollow shell,' which the new Sherman of Free Religion is crumbling in its grasp? How comes it that, the moment the Catholic defini- page 21 tion of Christianity, accepted by nearly two hundred millions of believers, is abandoned, that moment the faith of the protesting world is shivered into innumerable conflicting definitions, and no man can accept his neighbor's? In fine, how comes it that Prof. Newman himself, though (as he says) he 'writhes with a sort of indignation' at the assertion that Catholicism is the true Christianity, can nevertheless find no other Christianity within whose pale he is willing to stand?"

These questions, friends, and countless others like them, will yet force an intelligible answer from the reluctant world. The answer is anticipated already by the thoughtful few. The decree has gone forth, and the flaming sentence is already written on the palace wall:—"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin." And this is the interpretation of it:—"Romanism is Christianity, and Christianity is Doomed."

I hope to see these positions first appreciated and then tested. Perhaps Prof. Newman will not dissent from me, when he perceives the real drift of my reasoning. But in any case I shall be glad to see the main question discussed on its merits, and settled on its merits. Especially would I say to all Christian opponents that, until they show some symptoms of comprehending the real grounds of my protest against Christianity, they waste their breath in attempting replies. It is as tiresome as it is profitless to discuss side-issues. If it can be shown that genuine Christianity is Catholicism, and Catholicism is a stumbling-block in the path of humanity, then all liberals will perceive that the sources of modern civilization must page 22 be outside of Christianity; they will perceive that Protestantism is better than Catholicism, not because it is more Christian, but because it is less so, and that it will be best of all when it has ceased to be Christian altogether.

That is my answer to the closing paragraph of Prof. Newman's letter. He thinks my position a "mischievous" one, as "giving aid to the most pernicious by far" of all "Christian sects," i. e. the Catholic Church. It is welcome to such aid as I give it. I concede that it has the true poison, and has it in its most concentrated and dangerous shape. But so long as the Protestant sects, which all dread and denounce the evils of Catholicism, are unconsciously propagating the very poison which has produced these dreaded and denounced evils, I would fain open their eyes to what they are doing, and show them that they cannot strike at the spiritual tyranny of Home without striking at the Christian Confession winch is its warrant. That is the serpent's fangs whence the poison is distilled. Is it more mischievous to dig up the roots of an error, than it is to clip its leaves? Prof. Newman abhors Romish ecclesiasticism, and with good reason. Trace it down to its root in the Messianic idea, which is the burden of the Protestant gospel also; show that this Messianic claim of one man to be Lord over all men has borne fruit in tyranny and persecution from the very beginning; and prove that Protestant intolerance and Catholic intolerance, springing from one and the same root, are to be cured only by uprooting this Christian Confession, this one great and common article of all Christian creeds. Where this autocratic principle prevails, there is small chance for the growth of human freedom. In vain is the protest made against Popery, when every Protestant Christian "crooks the pregnant hinges of the knee" to the Pope's Pope. Teach him that all Christianity is based on Popery, his own included; and that the Pope principle governs in his own Methodist or Baptist or Congregational meeting-house just as truly as in the Cathedral or the Vatican. No teaching could be less "mischievous," unless everything is mischievous that dissuades from abject submission to authority. If spiritual freedom is indeed the path to virtue and true happiness, it is the most beneficent teaching of the times.