“Anglicans having destroyed, as far as their influence extends, the whole
authority of the living church, they affect, since they must obey
something, to reserve all their obedience for what they call the primitive
church. The late Dean Mansel tells us that some of the worst enemies of
revealed truth employed the same pretext. ‘The earlier deists,’ he says
(naming five notorious ones), ‘carried on their attack under cover of a
reverence for primitive Christianity;’ and he goes on to ask, ‘Has such a
supposition ever been made, except by wicked men desirous to find an
excuse for their transgression of the law?’ Now, this is exactly the
attitude of Anglicans towards the authority of the church. They exalt her
prerogatives, and admit that she is ‘infallible’; but they deny in the
same breath that she has the power to teach or to ‘pass decrees,’ because
that would imply the obligation of obedience, and they are resolved to
obey nothing but themselves, and therefore they have invented the theory
of the Christian Church which may be enunciated in the following terms:
“ ‘The church of God, though destined by her Founder to a divine
life, has become by degrees a mere human thing. In spite of the
promises, her decay began with her existence, since even the
apostolic sees all “erred in matters of faith.”(21) She was
designed to be One, but is now divided. She was intended to be
universal, but ... it is far more convenient that she should be
simply national. She still has a voice, but cannot use it. Her
decrees would be irreformable if she had not lost the power to
make any. She is theoretically infallible, but her infallibility
may be corrected by any intelligent Christian who feels qualified
for the task. She has a right to enjoin obedience, but everybody
has a right to refuse it; for though obedience was once a
Christian duty, yet, since there is no longer anything to obey,
this particular virtue has lapsed, and every one is a law to
himself. It is no doubt her office to correct the errors of
others, but unfortunately she has not yet succeeded in detecting
her own. “Every tongue that resisteth her in judgment she shall
condemn,” but meanwhile it is quite lawful for every tongue to
condemn _her_..... Unity is her essential mark, by which she was
always to be recognized, but as it has no centre it is now purely
chimerical. The great teachers of Christendom fancied the Pope was
that centre, but this was evidently delusion. It was in the
beginning a condition of salvation to “hear the church,” but as
she has lost her voice nobody can be expected to hear her now, and
the conditions of salvation are changed. It used to be her
business to impose terms of communion, but it is the peculiar
privilege of modern Christians to substitute others for them. The
defection of millions in the earlier ages, who became Arians or
Donatists, did not in the least affect her unity or impair her
authority; but the rebellion of certain Englishmen—whose fathers
had obeyed her for a thousand years, or of Russians, who have
invented a local religion and do not even aspire to an universal
one—is quite fatal to both. Of all former apostates it was rightly
said, “They went out from us because they were not of us,” but no
one would think of saying this of men who live under the British
Constitution, because they have a clear right to “go out” whenever
they please.’ ”
Such is the Anglican theory, ... in the face of which the Anglican
prophets go to their temples, and loudly proclaim, “I believe in One,
Holy, Catholic Church.” The natural result of such teaching is that a
majority of Englishmen have long ceased to believe in anything of the
kind.
Nor is the Anglican theory about the Catholic Church a more impossible
absurdity than what they profess to believe, and apparently do believe,
about their own, although they do not state their belief in the bare and
unambiguous manner in which we will state it for them.
That sect “existed,” they tell us, “before the so‐called Reformation,
which was only a trivial episode in its history. It left the Church of
England exactly what it was before, and only made it a little more
Catholic. If its founders called the Mass a ‘blasphemous fable,’ they must
have intended that it was the most sacred rite of the Christian religion.
If, whenever they altered their new Prayer‐Book (which they did very
often), it was always to make it less Catholic, this was probably in the
hope that its doctrine would improve in quality as it lessened in
quantity. If its bishops for many generations persecuted Catholics to
death or tortured them as ‘idolaters’ this was only a quarrel of brothers,
and they were as deeply enamored of the Catholic faith as those whom they
murdered for professing it. If for more than a hundred years they gave the
highest dignities to men who had never received episcopal ordination, that
fact proved nothing against their reverence for the apostolic succession,
or their conviction that they possessed it themselves. In like manner
their casting down altars (in some cases making them into paving‐stones),
and substituting a ‘wooden table,’ in no way affect our constant
declaration that the doctrine of the Christian sacrifice was always most
firmly held and taught in the Anglican Church. That they allowed their
clergy every variety of creed may have been one way of testifying their
conviction that truth is one. Their constant execration of the Catholic
faith must be interpreted as meaning something quite opposite; in the same
way, if you suppress the Homilies and reverse the Articles, which for some
sagacious reason were written as they are, you will find the genuine
theology of our founders.
“Finally, if the Church of England pretended to be fiercely Protestant for
three centuries, this was only to take the world by surprise about the
year 1870, and thus secure the ‘Catholic revival’ which will hasten the
time when Dr. Tait will be universally recognized as the legitimate
successor of S. Anselm—particularly in his religious views—and the
Anglican reformation justly appreciated as a noble protest against the
noxious errors of Protestantism, with which it accidentally coincided in
point of time, but had nothing in common in point of doctrine.”
But of what avail is all this? Ritualists succeed in revealing the
disorganization of their sect, only to show that it is incurable, and yet
are able to persuade themselves that such a sect as this, which exists
only to “neutralize” the revelation of the Most High, is an integral part
of that majestic and inflexible “Church of the living God,” upon which he
has lavished all the highest gifts which even divine munificence could
bestow.
Speaking of some recent conversions to the Catholic Church, the _Church
Herald_ says: “From what we hear from quarters which are well informed,
there can be little doubt that another large and influential exodus in the
same direction is imminent.” If Anglicans are not converted now, the case
does indeed seem hopeless. But they need more than ever at this moment a
solemn warning. They may begin to desire reconciliation, and to flee from
the house of bondage; but, if they think they can criticise the church as
they have been in the habit of criticising their own sect; if they propose
to teach instead of to learn; to command instead of to obey; if they do
not seek her pardon and blessing in the loving spirit of penance,
humility, and submission, let them remember that the church of God is no
home for the lawless and self‐sufficient.
But to all those who in humility and sincerity are seeking the truth, We
would say with all possible intensity of entreaty: “Let him that is
athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely,”
for “the SPIRIT and the BRIDE say, COME.”
Antar And Zara; Or, “The Only True Lovers.”
An Eastern Romance Narrated In SONGS.
By Aubrey De Vere.
Part VI.
They Sang.