Page images
PDF
EPUB

tutes a potent attraction for some minds. We have in our mind's eye the advantage which Rome possesses, in being able to claim an uninterrupted succession of traditions, in accepting, without restriction, all the wonders of the middle ages; boasting their saints and martyrs all her own, and encouraging that affection for their memory which should be the natural heritage of every Christian heart. We know well that all these are in a due sense ours also; we know that the Fathers are hostile as a body to the system presented to us by modern Romanism; we know, even, that the expertest Romish controversialists have been compelled to acknowledge this fact, to abandon the argument from Catholic tradition, and to take refuge in the terrible theory of development. But this knowledge does not affect the consideration which we would wish to express; that Rome possesses the externals of communion with all ages of the Church. She is thus likely to appear, to the uncritical eye, as possessed of the reality of Catholicity; and this fact must exercise a potent influence over all who are liable to be drawn within her sphere.

We have now enumerated, very briefly, some of the real or apparent advantages and consequent attractions possessed at present by the Church of Rome; various others might be named, but those quoted suffice for the occasion. We deny not, nay, we admit, that the Church of England, though possessed of all the requisites necessary to constitute a true branch of the Church Catholic, though further entitled to the praise of far higher doctrinal purity than pertains to Rome, is deficient in some departments of practice and discipline. There is a question, however, which may be said to lie at the very root of this inquiry, and on the solution of which the entire controversy betwixt Rome and England must be allowed to pend; and this is, does our Lord's promise that his Church should not be overcome by evil (a promise, the existence of which will scarcely be questioned), involve the absolute infallibility of that Church, or no? If it does, if that Church cannot partially fall, nay, even partially apostatize, at least as far as the addition of idolatry is concerned (as did the Jewish Church of old), then must all those who recognize the application of that promise to the visible, and not alone the invisible Church, abandon resistance to Rome, and acknowledge that her theory of her infallibility and spiritual impeccability, realized as she declares it to be in her actual existence, is alone consistent with the declaration of the Church's Divine Founder. But if, as we contend, nay, should almost assume, that promise be perfectly consistent with the partial fall and degradation, not only of branches of the Church Catholic, but even of the Church Catholic herself; then a sure ground is gained, from which we can advance to the exposition of our

Anglican theory on Church unity. Let then this primary position be well considered by those who follow the argument. Is it tenable? Divine grace must accompany the visible succession of the Church. This is acknowledged. Does that grace involve absolute infallibility? The examples of Judas and Peter alone may surely suffice to settle this inquiry in the negative. Nevertheless, we shall be told, the Spirit does conduct into all truth. We reply, into all saving truth; such truth, at least, as shall suffice for salvation; but not, necessarily, to dogmatic infallibility; or, what becomes of the doctrine of "invincible ignorance," which, it is admitted, may consist with the gifts of the Spirit? But surely, the respondent will tell us, the Spirit is not so bound to the visible channel of succession, that It may not withhold itself where there is deadly heresy, or denial of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. This may and must be granted; for we cannot conceive the Apostolic succession of any validity in Unitarian bodies. Our Lord has provided against this difficulty: He has specially declared, that his visible Church is founded on this rock-faith in his Godhead, or rather in the Godhead of the man Christ Jesus; the fundamental verity, which will be found on consideration to involve the whole mystery of the blessed and eternal Trinity, and all other Catholic truth: and He has further promised that the Church, founded on this rock, shall not be overthrown; in other words, He has constituted it an unfailing mark of his Church's presence, and has declared that the Church possessing it shall endure for ever. He has further constituted two mystic rites or ceremonies, as generally necessary for the salvation of all men; as the two great and abiding channels of Divine grace; and, finally, He has committed the faith in his Godhead, and consequently in the blessed Trinity, and the communication of these pledges of his presence, of these means of conveying Him, of conveying even Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to the soul, to a visible and divinely-constituted body, governed after a certain appointed fashion, and continued from age to age through the transmission of grace, conveyed by the imposition of hands, after the pattern first set by our Lord, and closely followed by his Apostles and disciples.

And now we have arrived, as it were, suggestively and by implication, at the three infallible marks of a Church's Catholicity; that is, of its being a true and visible branch of that one Church Catholic which, in the spiritual "communion of saints," at least, must enjoy undivided unity. These are, then, as has been already inferred, faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, and implicitly in all that is revealed by God, communication of the two great Sacraments as the visible sources, VOL. X.-NO. XIX,-SEPT. 1848.

E

and channels of grace, and possession of the Apostolic succession and government. These are the only indispensable marks, and, there is no doubt, have been ever possessed, and are at present possessed by all visible branches of the Church Catholic. And consistently with the possession of these marks of God's inheritance, there may be marks of human error, in the actual neglect of ordinances, or their corruption, or in practices which have no warrant in God's word, but are rather repugnant to itin superstitions, and even in idolatries. Thus it was under the former Dispensation, and thus it may be under the latter.

Having stated what the indispensable requisites of a visible Church, or branch of the Church are, according to the Anglican theory or belief, it appears scarcely necessary to draw the conclusion, in so many words, that the Anglican Church must be such a branch. But if this be true, it is further obvious that allegiance is generally due to our spiritual mother, as such, from her children; we say generally, because we will not affirm that no cause whatever could possibly excuse a baptized Christian in seceding from a body which possessed the requisites above enumerated. This is, no doubt, a difficult question to decide, and we wish not to speak strongly; but it does appear to us, that the adoption of certain corruptions, although they may not invalidate a Church's hold of fundamental verities, may yet possibly justify her children in deserting her communion. We will confine ourselves to the case of idolatry. Surely those who believe prayers to any creature to be positively sinful and idolatrous, are bound to protest against them. The language of Scripture on this subject cannot be mistaken. Are they to allow their children to be contaminated by partially idolatrous instruction, even if they could, in as far as themselves were concerned, escape its ill effects? Besides, the Church of Rome accepts no divided allegiance; you must submit altogether and on every point, or you cannot be truly a Romanist at all. Could a man remain honestly in the Roman communion who rejected that tenet of infallibility, on which Romanism, as distinguished from Catholicity, is erected; without which that communion declares there can be no salvation? What follows? Simply, that members of the Church of Rome may be justified in leaving her communion, even whilst they continue to recognize her as a possible channel of salvation. Nevertheless, to resume the thread of our argument, so much is certain; Anglicans are generally bound to yield allegiance to their spiritual mother as a Church; and, unless they believe that they cannot be saved in her, they commit a most deadly sin in leaving her.

We must be permitted a passing allusion to those Lutheran and Calvinist, or rather Presbyterian bodies, whom we appear to have

left altogether on one side, as unworthy of classification. Their case is undoubtedly peculiar, and it would be most painful to decide against them; to deny, that is, that they can be possessed of the ordinary means of salvation, including Sacramental Grace. Rome upbraids us for our indecision, and hesitates not to fulminate her anathemas: but does not absolute necessity palliate much, if not all? If, as we have striven to show, conscientious men may be wisely impelled to leave the Roman Communion, to protest; may be driven so to do; can we make them responsible for the unavoidable fatality of their positions? Can we believe that Providence will hold them so? And yet it is safer, perhaps, and wiser, to believe that grace, where it is communicated to them (and that so it is we doubt not), is extraordinary rather than ordinary; that it flows because God wills it, but not in the appointed channel.

To resume, the Church of England has her distinctive excellences, which may be more than set off against any practical deficiencies. Her faith is that of the Catholic Church of all ages: we have therefore absolute, we may truly say infallible, warrant for the correctness of her teaching, both from Holy Writ itself and universal tradition. Her Creeds are those of the Church Catholic, and express all the fundamental verities of the faith. He who realizes these alone may well rejoice. But again, her Articles, against which such an outcry has been raised by Romanists, alas! that we must add, by Romanisers also; what do they say that can be reasonably construed as inconsistent with the Creeds? Indeed they specifically affirm the absolute correctness of those Creeds. They further confirm, individually, all the leading tenets of Christianity,--the Trinity, the Godhead of our Lord, his Descent, his Resurrection, personality of the Holy Spirit, universality of original sin, incapacity of man without grace to please God, justification through Christ's merits applied by faith, the indispensable manifestation of that faith in good works, the possibility of repentance and pardon for sin after baptism, foreknowledge and assent of God to the salvation or perdition of men, called, in a certain sense, predestination, but most carefully guarded; nature and requisites and authority of the Church; grace conveyed in Baptism and the Lord's Supper, &c.

We are ashamed to deal seriously with the general futile objections; that man's free will is denied; that Baptism is not declared to be regeneration, but a sign of it; that the Presence in the Lord's Supper is not called real; and more of the same flimsy nature, which we may have occasion to refer to more specifically byand-by. Meanwhile, suffice it for the present to state our convic

tion, that whether judged by her Creeds, her Articles, or her Services, the faith of the Church of England will be found pure. This in itself should be an all-sufficient attraction for those who believe salvation possible out of the Roman Communion, and possible for them; and this we see not how any can question who rightly understand our Lord's promise, "The gates of hell shall not prevail." But she has other special excellences. She commends herself equally to the intellect and the heart; she claims no blind worship, but the allegiance of love; she does not bid her children seek truth, in the first place; but she gives it them, and bids them receive it. Only she does not affirm that she is infallible; she does not command them to cease to be reasonable creatures. Her services are at once catholic and beautiful. On this head we

have yet much to say. For the present we content ourselves with the general assertion, the truth of which her loving and earnest children will not question: her government is apostolic. Her practice and discipline, though defective, may well bear comparison in their fruits, as a whole, with those of any branch of the Romish Church, in the social, moral, and religious state of the nation submitted to her care.

Yet, despite all this, and far more than we can at present even allude to, it cannot be denied that the Church of England is still, in some respects, in an abnormal position. Wherefore this? Because in her actual development she may be said to be, in part, the consequence of a Reformation, or rather Renovation, at all events, of a mighty change. And a re-action against that practical system which had prevailed within the Visible Church of God, accompanied by whatever doctrinal errors, for many centuries could scarcely fail to occasion the temporary loss, nay, the loss for a long time, of some good and holy practices, more especially in matters of discipline.

But we must go somewhat deeper here. Here again a fundamental question suggests itself, on the solution of which (as on that of the one before propounded) we believe the whole controversy betwixt Rome and England to depend. Has, or has not, as a matter of fact, a Great Development of Error arisen within the Visible Church, which has received its most distinct embodiment in the system known to us as Romanism? If this question be answered directly in the negative, we scruple not to confess, that "tendimus in Latium" would appear to be the destiny of the respondent. The existence of a Development, either good or evil, can surely not be questioned; and it must be one of the twain. We must either recognize modern Romanism as the result of the working together of all the lawful elements of the Church, originating on the one hand in the early, though partial,

« PreviousContinue »