« FöregåendeFortsätt »
his people, tells us that “all” are to be “ damned, who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness”; that is to say, the deliberate rejection of the truth is in itself unrighteousness. There could not be a stronger assertion of the immorality of unbelief. And, as I have noticed above, “the unbelievers ” are reckoned by S. John among those who shall “ have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone ; which is the Second Death.” “ Antichrists," " liars," “ false prophets," “deceivers," "seducers," "grievous wolves," --such are the terms in which heretics are described by our Lord and His Apostles ; one of whom—he who is emphatically called " the disciple whom Jesus loved ”- does not hesitate to say that the sacred rites of hospitality ought religiously to be denied to him who impugns the doctrine of the Incarnation. “If there come any unto you,” he bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed ; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
To my mind these passages--and I have by no means exhausted all that might be quoted in the same strain--are absolutely identical in meaning with the “damnatory clauses” of the Athanasian Creed. They must all alike be understood with the qualifications which common sense suggests, and on which I have dilated to some extent already ; or they must all alike be condemned and abolished. There is no other alternative. And therefore let the assailants of the Athanasian Creed look to it. (pp. 164–8.)
The statement also of that eminent and greatly respected Unitarian minister Rev. J. Martineau, adduced by Mr. MacColl, is very remarkable. We quote the passage as it stands ; without intending of course to imply any sympathy whatever with Calvin, or Whitby, or Charles Wesley.
“ I am constrained to say that neither my intellectual nor my moral admiration goes heartily with the Unitarian heroes, sects, or productions of any age. Ebionites, Arians, Socinians, all seem to me to contrast unfavourably with their opponents, and to exhibit a type of thought and character far less worthy, on the whole, of the true genius of Christianity. I am conscious that my deepest obligations, as a learner from others, are in almost every department to writers not of my own Creed. In philosophy I had to unlearn most that I had imbibed from my early text-books and the authors in chief favour with them. In Biblical Interpretation I derive from Calvin and Whitby the help that fails me in Crell and Belsham. In Devotional Literature and Religious Thought I find nothing of ours that does not pale before Augustine, Tauler, and Pascal. And in the poetry of the Church it is the Latin or the German hymns, or the lines of Charles Wesley, or of Keble, that fasten on my memory and heart, and make all else seem poor and cold. I cannot help this. I can only say, I am sure it is no perversity; and I believe the preference is founded in reason and nature, and is already widely spread amongst us. A man's "Church' must be the home of whatever he most deeply loves, trusts, admires, and reveres, of whatever most divinely expresses the essential meaning of the Christian faith and life : and to be torn away from
the great company I have named, and transferred to the ranks which command a far fainter allegiance, is an unnatural, and for me an inadmissible fate.” (pp. 172-3.)
So far then we warmly sympathize with Mr. MacColl and his friends : we think that the cause of religious truth is importantly advanced, in proportion as a larger number of Anglicans agree with Mr. MacColl and contend against his opponents. * But it is quite a different question, how far Mr. MacColl acts reasonably in this or that way of promoting his desired end. Now he is not content with holding Athanasian doctrine ; he is urgent for retaining in his communion the compulsory recital of the Athanasian Creed: and we cannot see how he is here to be defended. The clergy, it is true, have to sign the eighth article ; but far the chief strength of those who oppose the Athanasian Creed lies with the laity, who do not sign the Thirty-nine Articles directly or indirectly. The case then is this. The enormous majority of Anglican laymen hold doctrines inconsistent with the Athanasian Creed ; † and they are aware that they constitute the enormous majority. It does seem a reasonable inference from this fact, that they shall not be compelled to recite a formulary which anathematizes their cherished doctrines. Let Mr. MacColl take active measures for procuring the expulsion from his communion of such misbelievers—and we entirely understand his proceeding: or rather such a movement is his only legitimate course, so long as he accounts that communion part of the Catholic Church. But he has no thought of doing this; he is quite content to remain
* Mr. Maskell, whose admirable pamphlet we notice a little later on in the text, thus speaks in p. 9. “The ritualists must bear to be publicly told, whether they like it or not, that Catholics do not . . ::
believe that they really teach all truth, more than their neighbours in adjoining parishes, who preach perhaps Socinianism, or perhaps the Lutheran idea of justification, or perhaps adherence to the nine articles of Lambeth.” Certainly no Catholic thinks that high-churchmen“ teach all Catholic truth": but surely they teach much more of it, than do preachers of Socinianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism.
+ "Mere Protestants have seldom any real perception of the doctrine of God and man in one Person. They speak in a dreamy shadowy way Christ's divinity; but when their meaning is sifted, you will find them very slow to commit themselves to any statement sufficient to express the Catholic dogma. When they comment on the Gospels, they will speak of Christ not simply and consistently as God, but as a being made out of God and
. : .. or as a man inhabited by the Divine Presence. the ordinary character of the Protestant notions among us on the divinity of Christ, whether among members of the Anglican communion or dissenters from it, excepting a small remnant of them." -F. Newman “To Mixed Congregations,” fourth edition, pp. 346-7.
in full communion with a swarm of persons, whom he must himself account heretics. All he desires is, that he may force violently upon those heretics the external recital of a formulary, which at heart they abhor. We do not see how it is possible for a Catholic to sympathize with so singular an agitation.
Meanwhile Mr. Mac Coll retorts on Catholics to their own supposed defects in the matter. He thinks they would be more satisfactorily circumstanced (p. 14), if they chanted the Athanasian Creed (in Latin ?) at "the office of Benediction.” He regrets (ib.) that a certain "good English” Catholic “ tradition” has been “ encroached upon by foreign devotions of a less masculine type”; and that the Athanasian Creed “has been elbowed out by devotions of a more emotional character.” He thinks (ib.) that Catholics "suffer a great loss, by seldom or never hearing the Creed in congregational worship.” He considers that there has been a movement among English Catholics against any prominent exhibition of the Athanasian Creed, which is in fact a movement against "the sober Catholicism of their Church” (ib.) in favour of “Ultramontanism” (ib., note). He thinks (p. 168) that Italian liberals might be perhaps less shaky in their Catholicity, if they had oftener heard the Athanasian Creed (in the vernacular ?) in congregational worship. All this is to us very surprising; but we should be carried too far if we refuted it in detail.
Dr. Pusey has announced, that if the authorities of his communion “tamper” with the Athanasian Creed, he shall no longer account it the same communion, and will seek safety elsewhere. Mr. MacColl, in a letter to the “Guardian” of September 18th, says that “if the Church of England with her own hands alters the Athanasian Creed or the rubric which prescribes its use, a secession is certain”: and he knows from letters he has received, that in such secession Dr. Pusey and Canon Liddon "would have a considerable following.” Considering the patristic professions of Dr. Pusey's school, we had hitherto regarded their ecclesiastic position itself as so amazing, that nothing fresh they did could possibly be more so; but this last step certainly is a surprise. That they should regard as a branch of the Catholic Church, a communion, so saturated with omnigenous heresy,—so incapable of teaching (we will not say the Catholic Faith, but) any one doctrine whatsoever *this is one astounding fact. But that their faith in its divine authority, after having been proof against all these crushingly adverse notes, should succumb to the mere disuse of one for
* In a later part of our article we dwell on these ch:ıracteristics of the Established Communion.
mulary—this is an even greater bewilderment. It is as though some passenger firmly believed in his ship's security, while the sea was rushing in on every side and rapidly sinking her; but his confidence should suddenly collapse, on observing that dinner-time had arrived and the bell had not rung. Certainly high churchmen are blinded by pen-and-ink theories to the plainest facts, in a degree utterly unapproached by any other Christian sect on record.
However the two Anglican Archbishops, in answering Lord Shaftesbury's memorial, have indicated their intention of "tampering ” with the Athanasian Creed, if they possibly can; and Dr. Pusey with his friends must therefore account his communion as on the verge of formal apostasy. Under these circumstances, we should have thought they had enough within their own pale to engage their attention; and we are a little surprised, that two of them should have chosen such a moment for an assault on the Roman Catholic Church. Such however is the fact. They call their pamphlets indeed “Church of England Defence Tracts"; but we pointed out in our last number (p. 204)—and F. Addis (p. 41) repeats the remark—that they do not contain one syllable in defence of the Anglican communion; that if their historical allegations were tenable, it would follow-not at all that the said communion is part of the Catholic Church-but that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist (p. 206).
The second indeed of these Tracts contains a defence of Anglican ordinations, and so far does attempt something positive. But, as we further observed (pp. 204,5), if its whole argument were conceded, the only inference would be, that the English Establishment possesses one characteristic, which every high-churchman admits to be possessed by various bodies denounced by him as heretical. We shall not here enter on the question; because Canon Estcourt has advertised a volume dealing with it expressly, which is sure to be filled with valuable matter, and which will be the obvious occasion for any remarks of our own.
Here therefore we will only quote some most admirable observations made by F. Humphrey, in the valuable work which we have named at the head of our article.
I need scarcely encumber my letter by any remarks upon the subject of “Anglican orders," as, if you have followed my argument, you will agree with me, that it has but little bearing on the real issne ; it is a matter which may be interesting to antiquarians, but, as a practical question, it is valueless.
If the ministers of the Church of England have valid orders, and ar ereally priests, their position is worse, than we, who believe them to be amiable and cultured layınen, at present regard it. It would still remain that they are
schismatics; and, in that case, they would simply be schismatic priests, instead of schismatic laymen. The guilt and danger of their position would be intensified. They talk of apostolic succession, as if that would make them an integral part of the Catholic Church. What avails it that the dead branch was once part of the living and fruitful tree, or that the amputated limb was once part of a living man ? (pp. 48, 49.)
They claim some sort of an occult connection with the Catholic and Roman Church, and it is necessary to their position; but if their orders are really valid, then that Church has been for three hundred years practising a systematic course of sacrilege- for both Confirmation and Orders are Sacraments which can be conferred but once, and to reiterate them is a sacrilege. Either, then, the Catholic and Roman Church is not sacrilegious, and in that case “Anglican orders ” are invalid, and Anglican ministers are laymen ; or they are really priests, in which case she is sacrilegious ; and the sacrilege is not confined to the subjects of the Archbishop of Westminster, but extends to the whole body diffused throughout the world. And yet our friends form societies to promote their corporate reunion with a Church, which their assertion of the validity of their orders necessarily affirms to be sacrilegious. (p. 52.)
It is to me, my dear friend, the greatest consolation that [Anglican ordinations) are absolutely invalid ; and for this reason—were they valid, England would be probably at this moment under a curse. It would be red with the Blood of our Divine Lord. The guilt of sacrilege would rest upon her, and upon her children. Were they valid, the ministers of the Church of England would be schismatic indeed, but still true priests. In that case, if they said the words of consecration with due intention, they would have the Blessed Sacrament ; they would have the Body and Blood of the Divine Victin at their mercy. Now, reflect what-before the recent High-Church movement --was, not the isolated and occasional, but the usual and ordinary practice, in disposing of what remained of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper of the Anglican Church. A record of details I spare you ; and it is needlessyou know them as well as I do.
We, who are certain of the fact that your ministers are laymen, and there. fore their “consecrated elements” but bread and wine, hear of their destination with a smile ; did we agree with the High Churchmen, we should think of it with a shudder. But, thanks be to God ! England has been saved the guilt and the punishment of such a sin ; and the Church of England has never banished the Incarnate Word from her temples, for He has never, since she possessed them, been within their walls. (pp. 56, 57.)
The remaining Tracts purport to show, by an appeal to history, that the power now claimed by the Holy See was not given her by God. And firstly, a word must be said on this appeal itself to history. Anglican high-churchmen have got hold of the notion, that a Catholic, in arguing against them, is more or less embarrassed by history; that he tries to avoid facing the historical argument, and to divert the controversy into other channels. Never was there a profounder mistake.