Page images
PDF
EPUB

ened and confirmed, though it cannot be. created, by the obedience which springs from faith. Again, "Evangelicals,” if we are to use this expression, do unfortunately fail to appreciate the nature of baptism, and that, in this respect; they do not question that it may convey regeneration, but they deny that it always must. In the case of adult baptism, they are of course correct; there faith, justifying faith, must be present in the heart of the baptized person as a condition; but they do not see, that in the case of infant baptism the passive receptivity of the child is graciously counted for active faith by God. And yet, without this, would not infant baptism be a snare and a delusion? Nay, if we make it dependent on the prayers of the godfathers and godmothers, or on the will and intention of the priest, do we not run into that terrible error of Romanism, which, as the author of "Loss and Gain" remarks, almost constitutes a new religion; the doctrine of intention? Still, "Evangelicals" do admit, that grace may be, and constantly is, conveyed in baptism: they never could or would ask, "What is there, can there be spiritual, holy, or heavenly in baptism?" Nor could they declare, "an Antinomian holds that he may break the law; a spiritual believer only holds, that he is not bound to keep it :" though there is a sense in which there would be no law for the perfect Christian, if such Christian could be found.

But what shall be thought of his truthfulness, who in cold blood brings such sweeping allegations against a body of men that have been for many years his brethren, and many, very many of whom, surely, to his knowledge, "love the Lord Jesus" in all sincerity? We leave this painful subject. A few more suggestions of evil must be hurriedly adverted to. It is stated at page 59, that the Anglican must believe, that he who prays to saints is an actor in a sham, mistaking words for things, that is, necessarily effecting nothing, if he further believes that the saints do not hear. The inference is,-inasmuch as the heart's devotion of those who thus pray is undoubted, nay, as it cannot easily be questioned that their prayers have sometimes been heard,-that Anglicanism, which denounces the whole matter as "a sham," cannot be Catholic. But this is not so. Saints, indeed, cannot hear; for they are in Paradise, removed from the turmoil of this noisy world, at rest in Jesus, yet conscious of the existence of suffering to the Church militant on earth, and uniting with it in the petition that the kingdom of the saints may be perfected: they are not omnipresent to see, nor omniscient to read the heart, nor gifted with that Divine boundlessness which can at once distinguish and appreciate myriads of separate petitions, at once uplifted and not only can they not hear, but prayer to them,

:

direct invocation of them, is expressly forbidden as idolatry; even to our guardian angels who perchance might hear us, we dare not bow the knee. Nevertheless, the prayer of humble and loving ignorance to the creature may be heard by the Creator; and, by ignorance, we here understand the conscientious ignorance of love: such prayers may be heard, and may be answered, no doubt often have been so, by God, and therefore need not be regarded as 66 an absolute sham."

[ocr errors][merged small]

We resume. Page 101, it is suggested that impulse should be blindly followed when leading in the direction of Rome. He who consults reason and authority is compared to St. Thomas. Page 107, the need of an infallible earthly judge is assumed to be naturally felt by all. Page 177, we find obligatory celibacy adroitly advocated, on the ground that there must be great danger of sin in marriage, if it be not absolutely inevitable; because an Old Testament saint said, "In sin hath my mother conceived me;" as if all things had not been hallowed in and through Christ, marriage included; and as if there were not the same danger of sin in the employment of every human faculty, in eating, drinking, seeing, hearing, thinking, &c. Page 191, we are told that Unitarians hold a Trinity, because they believe the Son to be a prophet, and the Spirit an essence; whence it is implied that Anglican Trinitarians may believe about as much. Page 192, it is hinted that the doctrine of Apostolic succession was lost when the Oxford school arose; as if that could be lost, however imperfectly realized, which was stamped on every formulary of the Church, and solemnly recognized and renewed at every ordination. Page 202, it is suggested that the Romish doctrine of Indulgences is not understood; as if all did not know that it is a release of so many days or years from purgatorial suffering, conveyed through the merits of the saints, in reward for certain acts or prayers; the further presumption being, that those who die in external homage to the Church must escape hell. Page 278, we find it suggested that faith ought to be opposed to reason; so that the manifest corruptions of Rome become rather an attraction than otherwise to the believer. Page 331, excusing

Romanists from the accusation of vulgarity, it is hinted that the charges of our bishops may be placed on a par with Roman Catholic public proceedings; such as the articles of the "Tablet," we presume, and the fulminations of a Higgins and a Cantwell. Page 343, it is further laid down, that Englishmen have no faith; a charge, certainly, somewhat inconsistent with facts, when the faith of the educated portion of her population is contrasted with that of the corresponding class in any Roman Catholic country. Page 349, it is asserted, that there should be a standing order of Apostles above bishops, represented by the Pope; because St. Paul appears to have acted as the Metropolitan of Timothy. No doubt, a sound and weighty argument! We may further advert to the bold assertions and confessions, that Romanists do worship images, as having moved their eyes, or bowed their heads," &c. (p. 23); that the dogma of Intention involves "a new religion;" that Penance is "a make-up" for sin; and that every individual priest is the voice of the Church; together with the commendation of Passionists, for scourging themselves for the benefit of souls in purgatory (p. 377).

66

And now we are at last able to do what the reader may think should have been done at an earlier period. We can proceed to inquire, what may be regarded as the special bearings of the work, beyond the general design to injure the English Church, and advance the system of Romanism. Charles Reding, then, the hero, is represented as studiously avoiding controversy and controversial works, with the stedfast resolve to serve his own Church, but as being drawn on against his will, and half unconsciously, to hold the various tenets of Romanism, or rather of Popery; for it is the Infallibility of the Romish Church, as guaranteed by papal absolution, its presumed possession of absolute authority and of all truth, which appears to operate as the main attraction upon this youth's mind. We are told, indeed, somewhat mystically, though effectively, that, as one of the Romish elect, he could not escape his destiny; that " even before that blessed hour" (when he was to become a Romanist), "as an opening flower scatters sweets, so the strange unknown odour, pleasing to some, odious to others, went abroad from him upon the winds, and made them marvel what could be near them, and made them look curiously and anxiously at him, while he was unconscious of his own condition" (p. 185). But, leaving out of the question this odour of future Romish sanctity, this presumed spiritual affinity with modern Romanism, in all its ways and works, the following appear to have been the three main causes of "Charles Reding's" defections to Rome; and they are interesting, because we have reason to believe that the imaginary

Charles Reding is in these respects the type of many a real per vert from our Anglican communion. First, then, the craving for an absolutely definite dogmatic system; secondly, the desire for an Infallible Authority to enforce that system; thirdly, a tendency to false Asceticism, or rather, to speak plainly, to Gnosticism. These things, it appears, present the "great difficulties," the non-solution of which leads men from Oxford to Rome. It is not here, towards the end of a long article, that we can hope to dispose satisfactorily of such questions: much, also, has already been said in the course of these remarks, which bears upon all three. Nevertheless, though some little recapitulation may be unavoidable, and the satisfactory attainment of the end sought for is impossible, the subject is too important to be abandoned without a cursory examination, such as may enable us to arrive at some result.

First, then, for the first difficulty, the craving for a definite dogmatic system; we are unable to see that this is not presented to us in all essentials by the Anglican Church. In what respect is its system not definite? It would be difficult, after all, to name a doctrine on which a decisive opinion affirmative or negative might not be drawn from her Formularies and Articles. It is not true that she propounds doctrines as problematical; she always does give them as absolute and undoubted truths. What are the Creeds, what are even the Articles, if not distinct dogmatic statements? But shall we be told that her faith is not self-consistent? Wherein, we demand, is it otherwise? The Trinity, the Incarnation, Visibility of the Church, Apostolic Succession, Salvation through Christ alone, Justification by faith manifested in works, Free-Will, Predestination, Sacramental Grace-where is the contradiction here? We see none. But let us go further. This first difficulty being found on inquiry vague and meaningless, the second presents itself the want of assumed Infallibility. Without this, we are told truth is no longer truth, but only probability. But here there is a confusion both of terms and ideas. Truth is infallible, and is held as such. It is only not dependent on the Church, but the Church on it. But in reality these complainers would know truth as truth, without the slightest effort, without the least responsibility. Christianity must be written for them in the stars, or they cannot believe it. They will not "walk by faith." And yet, as we before remarked, this is manifestly an era of probation. Does our trial only consist in the recognition or non-recognition of Papal Infallibility? This we presume is the view taken by Mr. Newman and his followers. Conceivable it is, indeed, that the seeming divisions of the English Church, combined with the influence of external infidelity, should frighten

a simpleton, like poor "Charles Reding," to take refuge in the presumed certainty of Rome; but it is a melancholy symptom indeed of deeply-rooted faithlessness, of the loss of all hold on objective truth, when men like a Newman can put their heads into the Roman noose, and cast their all upon the tenet of Romish Absolutism.

The same craving for material possession in lieu of faith, which can scarcely be too severely stigmatized, is shown in the demand for Visible Union in the Church. It is apparently forgotten, that those who adopt the Romish theory of Unity (as expounded in this very "Loss and Gain"), are simply bound to exclude the Greek and Anglican Churches, all, in fine, but those of "the Roman Obedience," from the Church Catholic. How much more reasonable, charitable, and catholic, to conclude, that the Visible Church is one Kingdom under Christ; though with reference to its viceroyalties and stewardships, it may here assume the aspect of Absolutism, and there of Constitutional Monarchy. And here we may add, that we have omitted to notice Sheffield's flippant logic (p. 46), tending to prove, that unless the Wesleyans and the Church of England are One, the English and other Churches cannot be, because "unity is oneness of government." We answer, it is oneness of government, of faith, of practice, but only in essentials! What are essentials? In government, the Papists say Popery, and we Episcopacy. If they are right, their Churches are alone Catholic; if we, the Greek, Anglican, Swedish, and American, are so also. "Utrum horum mavis accipe." We have no space to notice the very pointless string of questions, on the same theme, propounded by a certain Willis (p. 259). But, we resume, as the Anglican Church's system is definite, so is its authority also: neither is absolute, any more than an external system of morality, or the right of parents to command children. The application of no earthly rule should be absolute; there is not a human perception of right which would not become wrong, if pushed to an excess. It might be convenient to the slothful, were no ground afforded for the exercise of conscience or of reason; but God has willed rather to allow of the possibility of Evil through the medium of Liberty, than to create a world in which Knowledge and Bliss should be perfect and universal. It is the primary law of the universe of which these men complain, who would here materially possess the Absolute.

And now for the third "great difficulty" of Anglicanism: its discouragement of "counsels of perfection," or the ascetic life. Very briefly shall we here treat of this important subject. It is suggested by the author of "Loss and Gain," in the fourth and

« PreviousContinue »