Page images
PDF
EPUB

way;" yet those who differ from the Church could not be more effectually denounced with all the rites of "bell, book, and candle," than they are in his "Charge." He admits that direct hostility and public anathema have failed to arrest the progress of the evil; and therefore, like a prudent general, he recommends his officers to employ another strategy than that which has so often been at fault. But he is not careful to withhold his own condemnation of the heresy so difficult to suppress. Papal allocution and encyclical are not more distinct in their enunciation of Church "unity," in which Dissenters have neither part nor lot. He tells us that "there is an irreconcilable difference on first principles between Church and Dissent which no amount of brotherly feeling can heal over." The syllabus has not put the matter more clearly; and we defy any clergyman of the diocese of Peterborough, to preach the doctrine of exclusiveness more definitely, or to denounce the Dissenter in terms of more terrible significance. Yet, as the great end to be sought is the recovery of Dissenters back to the fold, he recommends his subordinates to refrain from the open application of " Church principles," and assures them that their reticence will be more availing than the full avowal of their strong convictions.

What, then, is the " Church," and what is "Dissent"? Time and temper are often wasted in controversy when its terms are not clearly stated, and we must therefore let Dr. Magee inform us what in his opinion, these two names represent. He says, "Dissent is certainly a very great hindrance to the parish clergyman......Dissenters fully recognise this fact, and it is indeed one of their strongest grounds of offence with our Church, that she is intolerant of schism, and that her idea of schism differs essentially from theirs. She believes that the Church was designed by Christ to have not only an inward unity of the Spirit, but also an outward and visible unity, manifested to the world by the existence of one visible society, having a Divinely-given creed, order, and polity, and that to separate from that society for anything short of its imposing sinful terms of communion, is the sin of schism from which she prays to be delivered. They believe that the Church of Christ was intended by Him to have an inward and invisible unity of the Spirit, not to be manifested by the existence of one visible society, but by the existence of a number of separate and independent and self-originating societies with widely differing order, polity, and creed: which, nevertheless, display the unity of the Spirit by the mutual interchange of good offices, and the exhibition of brotherly kindness and charity towards each other."

In the first place, then, the "Church" has " an outward and visible unity;" and this unity is "manifested to the world by the existence of one visible society having a Divinely-given creed, order, and polity." We may observe that the order and polity are put in the same category as the creed. As oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon are essential to the "unity" we call air, so creed, order, and polity are essential to the unity called the "Church." But where can we find this unity? If all these things are necessary to the integrity of the Church, we very much fear that the Church has no existence at all. Leaving out the "order and polity," where is that unity of "creed" which Dr. Magee and his party" believe

to exist"? Is it in that Babel in which some are Rationalists and some Romanists, where Evangelical and Tractarian, High and Low, Broad and Narrow, are confounded, and do "not understand one another's speech"? If so, then Dr. Pusey and Mr. Jowett "manifest" this unity at Oxford, and Dr. Stanley and Mr. Mackonochie in London! Yet it would be surely hard to tell what brings Dr. M'Neile and Mr. Bennett into the "unity." It would almost appear that the "order and polity" are more than the "creed." But not to be too critical, what is meant by a "Divinely-given creed"? We have heard that faith" is the gift of God;" but we are on the way to the doctrine of infallibility, and a long way too, when we claim Divine authority for our "creed." Besides, the fundamental parts of the orthodox, Catholic creed, are held by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Independents, as firmly as by Episcopalians. Wherein, then, is the specific."unity" of the Anglican Church, arising from the possession of a "Divinely-given creed," by which it claims to be the only Church of Christ in this country, to the utter exclusion of all other denominations?

He does not

Dr. Magee says but little about Roman Catholicism. even refer to it as a "hindrance," like Dissent. He, perhaps, would object somewhat to its "polity," and yet more to its "creed;" but to its "order" of apostolical succession he could not demur. Yet, if this Church was ever the "visible society," having "the inward unity of the Spirit," how can it be anything else now? It is the very gist and essence of his argument that the Church is one, indivisible and perpetual. If he does not mean this he means nothing. The aisles and arches of his cathedral never echoed to wilder absurdities in the days when monks rehearsed the legends of medieval saints, than his voice proclaimed when he asserted the necessary, "visible unity" of the Church, yet meaning that this unity can be broken, and has been broken. He seems to defend his position when he says that "to separate from that society for anything short of its imposing sinful terms of communion, is the sin of schism from which she prays to be delivered." But herein is a contradiction of terms. How can the Church, which has a "Divinely-given creed, order, and polity," and an outward unity to manifest the inward unity, prescribe "sinful terms of communion"? Can it be the Church, and not the Church at the same time? Then, if the external forms of the Church are unchangeable, as well as its inner spiritual principles, we fear that the Bishop of Peterborough, and his venerable neighbour who holds the See of Lincoln, are schismatics at this moment. We cannot be astonished that the reasoning based upon such premises is powerless before the logic of Jesuitism. If it is once granted that Romanism has the essentials of the true Church the steps to Ultramontanism will be easy, and to some minds, inevitable. It does not require the sagacity of Monsignor Capel to perceive how the inculcation of these "Church principles" furthers the designs of Popery in England. Dr. Magee's logical instinct prevents him from denouncing Romanism as a "hindrance" to the work of his own Church, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham in charging his clergy would scarcely speak of the Anglican agencies as a "hindrance" to the fulfilment of his wishes. He might say, "They teach our peculiar dogmas, circulate our books of

VOL. XXII.-FIFTH SERIES.

E

devotion, imitate our ceremonies, and are scattering Protestant prejudices, and undermining Protestant convictions, in a manner which excites our increasing admiration and hope." It is "the irony of fate" that then the Romish dignitary would be compelled to take up his parable against his Anglican friends, and pronounce their present position as utterly sectarian and schismatic. For he too believes in an "outward and visible unity" which represents "the inward unity of the Spirit." And we must invite these advocates of absolute, external unity, to decide between themselves what and where it is, before they summon us to subjection to it.

But not even in the Church of Rome has there been this unity of creed, except under the most artificial conditions. The faith under Pio Nono is not the same as that under Pio Quarto, and the Romanism of the sixteenth century widely differed from that of the eighth. In another direction we find the "Old Catholics" protesting against what Mr. Gladstone calls "novelties in religion," and seeking to harmonize their theology with that of the Anglican and Greek communions. They are liberal enough to yield the filioque to the Eastern Church, and to recognise the validity of Anglican orders, but where is the "outward and visible unity" when Conferences at Bonn and elsewhere must be summoned to ascertain its most elementary terms? With such efforts as these one cannot but feel some sympathy, although the confusion of Episcopalianism with Catholicism is a fatal fallacy in the theory of unity upon which the negotiations have been made to rest. In the history of the British Church we cannot find this oneness of creed if we go back to the times of Laud and the Assembly of Divines, or to those of Cranmer and Gardiner; while those of Wycliffe and Bishop Courtenay, or those of Ralf Grosstete and Pope Innocent IV., serve us no better. Nay, it does not appear that there was perfect unanimity between the early British bishops and the followers of Augustine, while in the Apostolic age, some were of Paul, and some of Cephas, and some of James. The Romish Church has stained every foot of the Christian world with blood to establish this "unity" of creed, and if the authority of priest and king, armed with all the terrors of confiscation, torture, and death could have subdued the power of conscience, not even Dr. Magee would dare to be a "Dissenter" from the creed, or a “hindrance " to the unity. But Rome never had this unity, and could never create it, though to gain it she forfeited her splendid opportunities of Christianizing the world, and has made herself" a byword" and "an astonishment among all nations." If, then, the "inward unity of the Spirit " which God gave to His Church depends at all upon an outward unity of creed, we tremble for its existence in the world after Pentecost, if even it existed then. But we are sorry that the Bishop of Peterborough should think so meanly of the intelligence of his clergy as to expect them to believe that their own Church manifested this unity at this day, and that this was one of the great features distinguishing it from "Dissent."

But, though the search after the unity of the Church in its theological opinions is so disappointing, perhaps it may be found in its "order and polity." It is alleged that Romanist, Anglican, and Old Catholie, having episcopal ordination, have therefore the priestly authority and the

sacramental powers which can alone be derived from the apostolic succession: and this Dissenters have not. It is very convenient to find the "unity" in something to which the Dissenters do not pretend; although this theory also has its disadvantages. It makes the grace of Christianity to depend upon a human priesthood, and upon material rites. It implies that Christianity after all is not a spiritual system bringing God and man into direct communication through the One Mediator, and by the Spirit of God, but is a phase of Judaism under changed rites. How great a reduction this is upon its claims for the veneration of mankind we will not now pause to indicate. But it must be remembered that the Romanist, who ought to have some say in the matter, repudiates the whole theory. He replies to these friendly approaches by new lists of perverts, and by the most contemptuous disdain for the pretensions of Anglicanism. Moreover, if there was a Divinely-authorized "order and polity" given to the Church in the beginning, why was it not made permanent? How were the apostolic forms changed into episcopal? There is no trace in the New Testament of the modern distinction between the bishop and the priest. The episcopoi were identical with presbyters, and the deacons were not candidates for the eldership, but were the secular officers of the Church. If there was a "Divinely-given order and polity" granted to the primitive Church, it was that by which the Apostles appointed elders in every place; (Titus i. 5; Acts xiv. 23;) who were held responsible for the peace and progress of the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, or overseers. (Acts xx. 28.) The Bishop of Rome pretends to universal authority in the Church on the strength of assumptions scarcely more extravagant than those by which the Anglican Episcopacy is asserted to be the only valid fountain of ministerial authority, if it is not the exact transcript of the apostolic institution. And not even Dr. Magee, who is a very bold man, would be so bold as to say that it is.

But the distinction between the Churchman and the Dissenter which is given us, is not a real one. The former may believe that his "polity" is Divinely given, but so sometimes does the latter. The Presbyterian holds that his, which was the original form of ministerial ordination, ought to be permanently observed in the Church. The Congregationalist again asserts that in the beginning each Church managed its own affairs, and that so it should be still. In recent times the Irvingite has arisen, with his declaration that no Church exists unless it has apostolic orders and gifts, of angels, evangelists, and prophets. So that the Churchman is not alone in his doctrine of a "Divinely-given order and polity." The Methodists generally believe that within certain limits the Christian Churches have a right to adapt their organization to various times and their conditions, and they employ both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism in their ecclesiastical arrangements. But Dissenters, usually regard their "Church-principles " as secondary and subordinate to Christian principles, and do not refuse "alliances" with other Christians, though they cannot entirely unite with them. To refuse to do this would be the very essence of sectarianism. The Methodist can worship and work by the side of the Baptist, and the Presbyterian with the Independent; but Dr. Magee says the Churchman " I can have no alliances with the Dissenter." "There may be alliance between France and England, just

because there is no unity; there cannot be alliance between England' and Ireland, unless you first repeal their union." This is not a bad illustration to show the difference between union and alliance. But we may ask, Is not the union repealed between the Church and the Dissenter? If not, the only tie that binds them is that of State authority, which is "the pillar and ground" of Anglican unity at present; if it is, why does the Anglican refuse "alliances" with the Dissenter? The late F. D. Maurice, replying to Dr. Magee, when he was Dean of Cork, on the disestablishment of the Irish Church, showed how he had traced the "unity" of the Establishment-not to faith in doctrine, or in discipline, but to faith in endowments. And now, his reasoning implies that as soon as separation between State and Church can be effected, the Churchman may have an "alliance" with the Dissenter. This is an argument for disestablishment in England which will not be without its influence upon the controversy now in progress. But if the Church can have no "alliance" with that vast proportion of English Protestantism which lies outside its own pale, so much the worse for the Church. Exclusivism is and always was, a sign of spiritual decay. Incapacity for adaptation to changed conditions is a sure token of organic failure. The nonpossumus of Anglican Bishops, like the dreary wail of the Vatican over the "schism" of modern Europe, is "the beginning of the end." The need for union among Christians "who hold the Head" was never greater than now; for unbelief and superstition are joining their forces against faith and godliness; and no section of the Church can afford in such a day of danger to stand alone in self-sufficiency, and to say to every other member of the body, "I have no need of thee."

says,

On one point we quite agree with Dr. Magee; namely, that the strength of a Church is in spiritual power. He "Dissent is, many think, becoming more and more political, and less and less religious. So much the worse for it, if it be so: for it was the spiritual element in Dissent that gave it all its early strength and power, and if this should be lost to it, its power of hindrance will have passed away.......For that very reason take good heed how you become too political in your churchmanship...... The Church has no politics; the Establishment may easily have too much." Now, if Dissent is becoming more political and less spiritual, they ought to look to it: but we think this prognostication is not well-founded. It may be the illusion of hope, but we imagine there can be seen throughout the Nonconformist Churches a signal and widespread deepening and advance of the spiritual life. But how instructive is this caveat against politics from a spiritual peer! If his lordship really cared anything for the logical consequences of his utterances, would he have conceded so much to the "Liberation Society," as to say, that "the Church has no politics"! What then is the "Establishment" which "may easily have too much:" and wherein does it differ from the Church with its creed, order, polity, and unity?

The Nonconformists will indeed be infatuated if, with the history of the "Establishment" before them, they exchange spiritual strength for political influence. But when the Bishop says that the "Dissenters " have wielded a spiritual power, he may mean either that they have addressed themselves to men's spiritual convictions, or that they have

« PreviousContinue »