صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Having alluded to the subject of our Articles, it may be as well to add, that so far has Mr. Palmer been from arguing against the British Critic on the ground of alleged inconsistency with those formularies, that he quotes as a part of his indictment a passage (not written by myself) in which Mr. Oakeley is quoted as having "proved historically that the Articles were not designed to exclude Roman Catholics," (p. 66,) and attempts no refutation whatever of the position.

But even were the formularies of our Church accordant instead of discordant, urgent instead of wavering, definite instead of vague, still so long as her practical teaching is in the highest degree uncertain, conflicting, and contradictory; when members of our Church seem hardly to agree in one matter of positive opinion that can be named, except the purity of our Church; and when, even as to that, each party I maintains that our Church would be most impure if she taught doctrines, which the other party strenuously contends she does teach; I can see no possible defence for the position, ' that her formularies, in their primâ facie bearing, demand implicit reception from her children. Surely, until she is able so far to invigorate her discipline, as that one and one only doctrine in essentials shall be taught within her pale, she can have no warrant in making this demand. How can that sacredness and divine authority, which attaches to our first instructors, be fairly claimed for the English formularies in their natural sense, when in point of fact they are not our first instructors? It is the creed of our parents which first introduces us to the creed of our Church, and colours the latter with its own hues. And when our moral development has compelled us to desert that creed, those do not fairly challenge our adherence, who give to our formularies their most literal sense, but those who give to them that sense which promises most fairly as a rest and satisfaction to that development.'s

4. The two objections I have just considered are rather implied by Mr. Palmer, than distinctly stated. There is indeed only one passage, in all his pamphlet, which bears

On Church Authority,' pp. 231, 2.

with it the profession of reasoning against the course adopted by the British Critic: in all the remainder he merely expresses his own opinion, that such a course is undutiful and inexcusable. In the passage to which I refer, he proposes three exhaustive alternatives: of which I will proceed to quote that which concerns myself.

"If men are satisfied that it is a matter of duty to remain in the English Church, then I say, that it is wholly inconsistent with that duty to excite a spirit of doubt and dissatisfaction in the Church, and to tempt its members, in every possible way, to secede from its communion. Nothing can be more inconsistent than the practice of disregarding its authorities, encouraging disobedience and disrespect to its prelates, and discontent within the Church itself, as if the great mass of its members were engaged in measures hostile to the true faith. It is sinful even to contemplate the possibility of voluntarily separating from the Church under circumstances of persecution or obloquy. Notions of this kind tend to diminish the horror which every Catholic should feel at the very notion of schism." p. 67.

This, I say, is that part of the dilemma, proposed by Mr. Palmer, which includes my own case, I suppose indeed that, considering all the various proposals which have been made, and all the various measures which have been rumoured as in contemplation, and considering too some among the apparent tendencies of our existing condition, the number is very far from small of those, who have had more or less misgiving, what at some future time might possibly become their duty. But I can most truly say, that the very idea of leaving our Church has never been before my own mind as an immediately practical question; that my present feeling is (without for one moment judging others), that I should myself commit a mortal sin by doing so; and that it has been my uniform endeavour to divert my imagination from

b Mr. Palmer's remarks on 'development' shall be considered before I conclude: but they are directed against the truth of opinions advocated in the British Critic; not against the legitimacy of English Churchmen advocating such opinions. The latter is the point now in hand.

dwelling on such a contingency, even as a future possibility. It is very plain then that the paragraph I have quoted contains, if any part of the pamphlet contains, Mr. Palmer's grounds for thinking that the tone' of my articles 'cannot be excused.' p. 68.

[ocr errors]

First then, is it wrong in me to encourage' to the utmost of my humble power and opportunities discontent with the Church itself, as if the great mass of its members' are 'engaged in measures hostile to the true faith'? The answer to this must surely depend on the truth of the allegation. I willingly adopt Mr. Palmer's happy expression; I do believe that the mass of our Church's members' are unconsciously and unintentionally, but most effectually, 'engaged in measures hostile to the true faith;' this I believe, and hope before I end to prove. And believing this, it would surely be the strangest possible mode of shewing loyalty to the English Church, were I to remain perfectly quiet, enjoying the proceeds of my Fellowship, or (to use the ordinary language) 'eating the bread of the Church,' and abstain from drawing attention to evils, which appear to me so imminent, so fearful, so destructive of the very life and essence of a Church. Nor yet do I seek to encourage discontent with our Church herself, but only with that miserable system, to which, for three hundred years, she has been so unfortunately committed.

[ocr errors]

Secondly, is it wrong in me to disregard the authorities of our Church'? This must surely depend on the dicta of those authorities. The Roman Catholics indeed generally say, that Christians are, in matters of doctrine, bound to receive implicitly the decrees of St. Peter's Chair; but those who so think, think also that, by a Divine promise, that Chair is infallibly saved from teaching error. But to reject the doctrine of the Church's infallibility as a figment, to proclaim as a great and glorious truth, that all Bishops are but fallible men, and that the chief Bishop on earth sanctions, nay, practises, idolatry; and at the same time to call for implicit deference and submission to the doctrinal statements of a certain small body of bishops, who are indefinitely at variance with each other, and who, according to Mr. Palmer's own

theory, are separated off from the great body of the Catholic Church; this is a flight of conservative extravagance, an assumption of spiritual despotism, which can find no parallel beyond the circle of Anglican high-Churchmen.' My own sentiments on the subject I have already expressed, and find nothing to alter.

'One of the many difficulties,' I say, 'which press upon us in the present most unhappy state of our Church, is the question of the proper course to be pursued by Churchmen, when a bishop delivers ex cathedrâ doctrines which are in fact heretical.

There is no

difficulty of course when the points at issue are short of fundamental articles of faith; for silent submission to his diocesan's will, supposing an injunction to have been laid upon him, is then the clergyman's plain duty; nor, again, in the case of fundamentals is the question one of principle; for learned persons tell us, that, according to the uniform tradition of antiquity, even laymen have not the right only but the duty of contending for the faith openly and uncompromisingly, by whomsoever it may have been assailed, and under whatever circumstances. But the when and the how no doubt present matter for grave deliberation; and which perhaps at last must be decided in each case, as it separately arises, by reference to its own peculiar facts.' i

Thirdly, is it right to 'tempt' members of the English Church in every possible way to secede from its communion? Certainly not. That, for myself, it was in some sufficient measure impressed on my own mind, how serious responsibility on this head is incurred by all who express publicly their opinion on present circumstances, will, I hope, be evinced by the fact, which I lately mentioned, of my constant enforcement throughout my articles, of our Church's claim on our allegiance. But fully acknowledging (which I do), that frank and bold protests against the English Reformation, and the system introduced by it, have an indirect and accidental tendency, in some cases, to hasten, or even to cause, a separation from our Church, I would still most fearlessly meet Mr. Palmer on his own ground and by his own theory; and I would ask him, whether in any age of the Church it would be thought even tolerable in individuals, to be in any way less

'On Whately's Essays,' p. 225.

diligent and energetic in their protests against heresy, deeplyseated, subtly-insinuating, and widely extending heresy, because such protests had the accidental effect of inducing one or two orthodox to join a foreign communion? My defence then entirely depends on the truth or falsehood of the views I hold, as to the amount of corruption existing in and ruling our Church. If the evils be such as I suppose, I was justified in denouncing them as loudly as I did.

5. But although what I have said seems sufficiently to answer Mr. Palmer's observations, I feel deeply that there is a natural reason, for great dislike and suspicion of statements such as I have made; and a reason far more serious, and requiring far greater deference of tone in meeting it, than any of the objections which have occurred to Mr. Palmer. It is thought that the most ordinary reverence and docility of mind would secure a willing reception of those principles under which one is born; and that to allow one's self in open dissatisfaction with, or even hatred to, those principles, must imply much holiness, or else little humility. "We do not augur much good," says a writer in the British Critic, "of any one, who does not in the first instance throw himself into the system under which he is born, accept the voices of the teachers, divines, and pastors, by whom he is providentially surrounded, as the voice of heaven, and identify their pattern and their faith, with the holy doctrine which they have been the instruments of conveying to him." This general principle, thus stated, is that very principle, the high sacredness of hereditary religion,' which I singled out in the last chapter, as all-important at the present moment; and which it was the miserable sin of our Reformers, so grievously to violate. In fact, I wrote an article in the British Critic (that on Church Authority') with the main object of enforcing, illustrating, and vindicating this principle; in which article I extended it to its legitimate consequence, the case of Dissenters of whatever kind. Still, as the writer just quoted proceeds to say, "of course such implicit confidence cannot last in all cases, as time goes on; for there is but one truth whatever it is, whereas there are many kinds of voices

[ocr errors]

k No. lxii. p. 385.

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »