WAS THE REFORMATION A MISTAKE?
By W.
He who keeps his eyes open to observe the signs of the times, cannot fail to note how rapidly Catholicism is advancing, and how little opposition there is to it on the part of professed Protestants. Last week we gave liberal extracts from the Independent and the Christian at Work, in praise of the Pope, and now we have something still more pronounced, from the Christian Union of January 26. Following is a large portion of the article, which is headed, “Another Sign of the Times”:— “Nothing shows more clearly the decay of old religious animosities than the fact that so little has been heard of late of the old anti-Popery cry. . . . The old and somewhat panicky feeling which Protestants used to entertain toward the Pope and the church has evidently passed away. If evidence of this were needed, it would be found in the fact that the President’s gift of a copy of the Constitution of the United States to the Pope has for the most part passed unchallenged—has, indeed, been commended as an act of courtesy, and as a sensible way of discharging what was, under the circumstances, a matter of national obligation; for as the author of ‘Religio Medici’ long ago suggested, the Pope is a temporal prince, and the amenities which are paid to princes are due to him. . . . In England, where the anti-Popery feeling has been even more rabid than in this country, an English nobleman of the highest rank has recently conveyed to the Pope the personal sympathy and good-will of the Queen, and was instructed ‘to give expression to her feeling of deep respect for the elevated character and Christian wisdom’ which the Supreme Pontiff has displayed in his high position. ‘The temperate sagacity,’ said the envoy, ‘with which your Holiness has corrected errors and differences, from which much evil might otherwise have arisen, inspires her Majesty with the earnest hope that life and health may long be granted to you, and that your beneficent actions may long be continued.’” After mentioning the events connected with the Pope’s jubilee, and the brilliancy of the pontifical mass in St. Peter’s, the editorial continues:— “Among the almost countless congratulations that were received from all parts of the world, Protestant good wishes and congratulations mingled with those from Catholic sources. This is as it should be, and marks the coming of the better age in which the bitter and unchristian animosities of the past are disappearing as the shadows at the dawn. “One may hold Protestant convictions as resolutely as his fathers held them, and may oppose the Catholic propaganda in Church and State with the greatest zeal and earnestness, and still preserve toward this church that attitude of Christian courtesy which ought to be, although it never yet has been, the characteristic of Christian peoples. It is not impossible that the time may come when the old antagonism of the Catholic and the Protestant may appear insignificant in view of the deeper antagonisms which shall make them essentially one. Thomas Carlyle declared that the real struggle in every age is between the believer and the unbeliever, and it has seemed at times of late as if this phrase might soon describe the practical issue of certain tendencies in modern society. For anarchism and social disorder of the radical kind have their roots in atheism, and it is quite possible that the time may come when the real issue will be between the theist and the atheist; the man who believes in God, and order, and freedom, and rights of person and property on the one side, and the man who disbelieves in all these on the other side. Whenever that time comes, the Protestant and the Catholic will stand side by side in a common defense of those common beliefs which have been their mutual possessions these many centuries. Stranger things have happened in history than such a change of attitude as would be involved in the fellowship of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant; and it is well to remember in any event that the only Christian way to hold one’s convictions is to hold them with charity and courtesy.” Can anybody give a reason for this change in the feeling of Protestants toward Catholicism? Was it all just a senseless “panicky feeling,” when the Waldenses and Albigenses used to tremble at the approach of the minions of the Pope? Was Luther’s feeling toward the Pope nothing but jealousy? Did Huss and Jerome, and tens of thousands of others whom we call martyrs,—did they commit suicide? Was it foolish superstition on the part of the Lollards, when they used every means in their power to conceal their Bibles, so that the agents of the Pope might not burn them? In short, must we say that the Reformation was a mistake, and that the men who stood so firmly for principle were nothing but cranks? If not, why should there be any change in feeling towards Rome? She has not changed at all. Leo XIII. believes every dogma that the church has ever put forth, and he believes that every one of his predecessors in the Papal chair was infallible, and could not do wrong. What is it, then, but that he would do the same things if circumstances seemed to make it necessary, and he had the power? When we remember the record which Rome has made, it is startling to read in an influential Protestant journal that “the Pope is a temporal prince, and the amenities which are paid to princes are due to him.” And it is still more startling to learn that almost every nation is giving practical evidence of its belief in this statement. Someone may say, “Oh, it is not because they favor Catholicism; they do it simply from political motives.” Of course; nations and their rulers never take any steps except from political motives; and the Roman Catholic Church is simply a vast political machine, and therein lies the danger from it. We have no fears that Protestant America will ever turn Catholic in name; but when Protestants cease to protest, they might as well be Catholics. We hold that Protestantism today ought to stand in the same relation to Catholicism that it did in the days of the Reformation. That does not mean that we should hate Catholics, or that we should have any feelings toward them other than those of Christian charity and courtesy; but it does mean that we should protest against the principles and practices of the Church of Rome, and not be dazzled by its display of wealth and power. But the last paragraph of the Christian Union’s article should be read with care. What do we read? “It is not impossible that the time may come when the old antagonism of the Catholic and the Protestant may appear insignificant in view of the deeper antagonism which shall make them essentially one.” “Stranger things have happened in history than such a change in attitude as would be involved in the fellowship of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant.” All we have to say is, Woe to the Christianity that will be defended against atheism by an alliance of Catholics and Protestants. It will be a form of Christianity upon which the wrath of God will fall. Is it not time for some to be crying aloud and lifting up their voices like a trumpet? In other words, is it not time for the rapid spread of the Third Angel’s Message, which is to the nineteenth century what Luther’s work was to the sixteenth?
W.