p. 173Recapitulation of Part II

We will now in conclusion recapitulate the arguments of this Part II. of the book. And we deem it more opportune to do so, by redirecting attention to the idea developed in Part I., that is, the original or eternal plan of the Church.

We take it for granted our opponents will not hesitate to admit, that unity is an essential characteristic of any design which is Divine. In the eyes of all Christians this must be looked upon in the light of a first principle. There cannot be discord or conflicting thoughts in the mind of God.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ is God, and being God, unity is one of His Divine attributes. If He is not the God of unity, He is not God at all, and Christianity becomes a chimera. But we are of opinion that, with the exception of the party which goes in for extreme latitudinarian views, Anglicans generally believe, as we do, that He is the God of unity. This, however, they cannot believe with firm faith, unless they are willing to grant the necessary inference—that there must be unity in His design of a Church, i.e., that as there is only one God, so there can be only one religion, which is the trustworthy expression of His mind for His people. These premises being conceded, the following conclusions are inevitable:—

(1) Christ’s eternal design of a Church could not find its fulfilment in an institution, the sections of which would be in perpetual conflict concerning the meaning of His teaching,—concerning doctrines pertaining to man’s highest, because eternal, interests.

If His ideal pointed to an organisation where such a mass of contradiction was to be found, then unity was not one of its features, or rather, unity was conspicuous by its absence.

(2) That design could not find its fulfilment in an institution, which not only confessed its utter powerlessness to give the correct interpretation of His revelation, but even virtually gave its members the right of taking contradictory meanings out of His own words and the words of His inspired writers; else He could not have meant His religion to continue to be the same thing which He revealed.

(3) It could not find its fulfilment in an institution, which would be willing to change and mutilate the doctrines of His Gospel according to the dictates of State control, and the whims or caprice of secular rulers and National Parliaments. A plan, which should answer to a pliable, temporising communion of that kind, could never have originated in the mind of the God of indissoluble oneness.

(4) It could not find its fulfilment in an institution, whose energies and efforts in propagating His faith could be circumscribed by local authority,—whose sphere of labour was to be marked off by the civil rulers of the civil realm; else it was idle to plan a Church which was to have the commission to teach all nations.

(5) It could not be realised in an institution, which professed to derive all jurisdiction over the souls of the people from an earthly sovereign; else He meant that the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven should be in the hands of the reigning lay monarch as well as in the hands of the Prince of the Apostles and his successors; and that royal hands could loose what Apostolic hands had bound, bind where they had loosed; and that with regard to the world to come; yes, with regard even to the issues of eternal life and eternal death.

(6) It could never have its realisation in an institution in which there was to be no court of definitive appeal, no court where doctrinal disputes could be finally settled, where the right could be distinguished from the wrong, where in times of rampant heresy truth could be separated from falsehood, and the truth definitively proclaimed and the falsehood definitively condemned,—no court where there was to be a voice, clear, distinct, emphatic and infallible to say: This is the true Gospel of Christ and not that.

If, in His eternal design, provision were not made for a tribunal of this kind, we should be forced to infer that, while as God He saw the rise and progress of successive heresies, He yet, with a perfect knowledge of their malice and dimensions, planned a Church which, in the war of contending voices, was unable to tell which was the right meaning of His revelation and which was not. Once exclude the existence of such tribunal, and the idea of a Church becomes meaningless; for without it, the Gospel would have been reduced to a mass of heretical teaching in less than a century after it had been announced.

These conclusions, which are clearly not wider than the “data” warrant, bring out that, whether the Church of England remains established by law as she is at present, or severs entirely her connection with the State, she is absolutely disqualified to be the “pillar and the ground of truth”.

Disestablishment would give her self-government, and remove many irksome impediments; but it would not bring her one iota nearer to the claim of being the realisation of a Divine ideal. Even if she were free from the shackles of secular control to-morrow, she would still lack an authoritative voice, with which to teach the truth, and to preclude that interminable contradiction of which she is indisputably and unhappily the mother.

Ritualists

There is only a word to be added:—

Ritualists, or the extreme High Church party, of which Lord Halifax¹1If we introduce the name of Lord Halifax, we do so with deep and unfeigned respect, as being the name of a man who, in sunshine and cloud, calm and storm, has shown heroically the courage of his opinions, and has by his noble self-sacrifice commanded the admiration of even his most determined opponents. (we mention the name respectfully) is the leader, may hold that, as they believe firmly in a preconceived design of a Church, and fill or very nearly fill the Catholic outline drawn in these pages, they have no need to change or make further advance.

It is true Ritualists have gone forward far in the right direction as to doctrine and ceremonial; true also they have repudiated the control which the State claims over the “spiritual beliefs” of their Church; but while gladly admitting all this, we are bound to point out the anomalous and indefensible nature of the position to which they have attained. From the point of view of the Universal Church, there cannot be a second thought about the matter. So long as they remain in their present standstill attitude, they are as little within the Church built upon the rock as those who profess the most anti-Roman creed of Evangelicism. Near approach is not actual arrival. To be at the doorstep is not to be under the roof. It is possible to be even on the threshold and yet never enter the house. A man is as truly outside the city of Rome, when he is within but a short distance of it, as he was when a hundred miles away from it. Doubtless they will hold that, since their symbol of faith is coextensive with that of the Roman Catholic Church, except in one point, they have a just right to the privileges of her naturalised children.

We think a good answer to this is found in the apt words of one who formerly belonged to the High Church party himself, but who, realising its illogical foundation, left it, joined the Church of Rome and became a priest. We allude to Father Woodall, who died in Scarboro’ a little while ago. He was an able, highly-educated, well-informed man, and a very ready controversialist. Once, while conversing with me on matters of religion, he related a controversy he had had with an influential Ritualist friend a short time before. The latter had insisted that as their body held all the doctrines taught by the Church of Rome—with the solitary exception of papal supremacy—they had as strong a claim, as Romanists themselves, to the advantages derivable from actual membership in her fold. Father Woodall’s reply was short but pregnant: “Now tell me this,” said he, “suppose you lived in London and in the very next house to the Bank of England, could you argue that your close proximity to the bank gave you a claim to a share in the dividends?” This was multum in parvo.