THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS.
A natural tendency is apparent in all men to differ among themselves,
even concerning subjects which are simple and easily understood;
while, on more difficult and complicated issues, this tendency is, of
course, very much more pronounced. Hence, the well-known proverb:
"_Quot homines, tot sententiæ_"--there are as many opinions as there
are men.
Now, if this is found to be the case in politics, literature, art,
music, and indeed in everything else, except perhaps pure mathematics,
it is found to be yet more universally the case in questions of
religion, since religion is a subject so much more sublime, abstruse,
and incomprehensible than others, and so full of supernatural and
mysterious truths, with which no merely human tribunal has any
competency to deal. Then, let me ask, what chance has a man of
arriving at a right decision on the most important of all
questions--questions concerning his own eternal salvation--who is
thrown into the midst of a world where there is no uniformity of view
on spiritual matters, where every variety of opinion is expressed and
defended, and where every conceivable form of worship has its fervent
supporters and followers.
Or, leaving all others out of account, may we not well ask how the
vast multitudes even of Catholics, scattered throughout such a world
as this, are to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace" (Eph. iv. 3), to preserve the tenets of their creed intact, and
to discriminate accurately and readily between the teaching of God,
and the fallacious doctrines of men? In dealing with anxious and angry
disputants there is little use to appeal, as Protestants do, to the
authority of teachers who have nothing more to commend them than a
learning and an intelligence but little better than that of their
disciples. Where man differs from man each will prefer his own view,
and claim that his personal opinion is as deserving of respect and as
likely to be right as his adversary's--which is practically what
obtains among non-Catholics at the present day. Indeed, the only
superhuman and infallible authority on earth recognised by them is the
Bible; and that, alas! has proved a block of stumbling and not a bond
of union, since, in the hands of unscrupulous men, it may be made to
prove absolutely anything. The most sacred and fundamental truths,
even such as the sublime doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity
of Christ, and the Atonement, have all, at one time or another, been
vehemently denied _on the authority of the Bible_! The Anglican Bishop
Colenso, in writing to the _Times_, could quote eleven texts of
Scripture to prove that prayer ought not to be offered to Our Divine
Lord! yet, it made no difference. He was allowed to go on teaching
just as before! No one seemed to care. What is "pure Gospel" to Mr.
Brown is "deadly error" to Mr. Green; while "the fundamental verities"
of Mr. Thompson are "the satanical delusions" of Mr. Johnson. In fact,
there is really less dispute among men as to the interpretation of the
Vedas, of Chinese chronology, or of Egyptian archæology, than of the
Bible, which, to the eternal dishonour of Protestant commentators, has
now almost ceased to have any definite meaning whatever, because every
imaginable meaning has been defended by some and denied by others. It
is beyond dispute that the Bible, without an infallible Teacher to
explain its true meaning, will be of no use whatsoever as a bond of
unity.
If the unity, promised by God-incarnate, is to be secured, the present
circumstances of the case, as well as the actual experience of many
centuries, prove three conditions to be absolutely necessary, _viz._:
a teacher who is _firstly_ ever living and accessible; _secondly_, who
can and will speak clearly and without ambiguity; and _thirdly_, and
most essential of all, whose decisions are authoritative and
decisive. One, in a word, who can pass sentence and close a
controversy, and whose verdict will be honoured and accepted _as
final_ by all Catholics without hesitation. These three requisites are
found in the person of the infallible Head of the Catholic Church, but
nowhere else.
Experience shows that where, in religion, there is nothing but mere
human learning to guide, however great such learning may be, there
will always be room left for some differences of opinion. In such
controversies even the learned and the well read will not all arrange
themselves on one side; but will espouse, some one view, and some
another. We find this to be the case everywhere. And, since the Church
of England offers us as striking and as ready an example as any other,
we cannot do better than invoke it as both a warning and a witness.
Though her adherents are but a small fraction, compared with
ourselves, and though they are socially and politically far more
homogeneous than we Catholics, who are gathered from all the nations
of the earth, yet even they, in the absence of any universally
recognised and infallible head, are split up into a hundred fragments.
So that, even on the most essential points of doctrine, there is
absolutely no true unanimity. This is so undeniable that Anglican
Bishops themselves are found lamenting and wringing their hands over
their "unhappy divisions". Still, we wish to be perfectly just, so, in
illustration of our contention, we will select, not one of those
innumerable minor points which it would be easy to bring forward, but
some really crucial point of doctrine, the importance of which no man
in his senses will have the hardihood to deny. Let us say, for
instance, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Can we conceive anything
that a devout Christian would be more anxious to ascertain than
whether Our Divine Lord and Saviour be really and personally and
substantially present under the appearance of bread, or no! Picture to
yourselves, then, a fervent worshipper entering an Anglican church,
where they are said "to reserve," and kneeling before the Tabernacle.
Just watch the poor unfortunate man utterly and hopelessly unable to
decide whether he is prostrating and pouring out his soul before a
mere memorial, a simple piece of common bread, or before the Infinite
Creator of the Universe, the dread King of kings, and Lord of lords,
in Whose presence the very angels veil their faces, and the strong
pillars of heaven tremble! Imagine a Church where such a state of
things is possible! Yet, we have it on the authority of an Anglican
Bishop--and I know not where we shall find a higher authority--that
this is indeed the case; as may be gathered from the following words,
taken from a "charge" by the late Bishop Ryle, which are surely clear
enough: "One section of our (_i.e._, Anglican) clergy," says the
Bishop, "maintains that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and another
maintains with equal firmness that it is not.... One section maintains
that there is a real objective presence of Christ's Body and Blood
under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. The other maintains
that there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of the
believing communicant."[5] Was such a state of pitiable helplessness
ever seen or heard or dreamed of anywhere! And yet this church, please
to observe, is supposed to be a body sent by God to teach. Heaven
preserve us from such a teacher. As a further illustration of the
utter incompetency of the Establishment to perform this primary duty,
we may call to mind the strikingly instructive correspondence that was
published some years ago between his Grace Archbishop Sumner and Mr.
Maskell, who very naturally and very rightly sought direction from his
Ordinary concerning certain points of doctrine, of which he was in
doubt.
"You ask me," writes the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell, "whether you are
to conclude that you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of
the [Anglican] Church to teach any of the doctrines spoken of in your
five former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated."
Here, then, we have a perfectly fair and straightforward question,
deserving an equally clear and straightforward answer: and such as
would be given at once if addressed by any Catholic enquirer to _his_
Bishop. But how does the Anglican Archbishop proceed to calm and
comfort this helpless, agitated soul, groping painfully in the dark?
What is his Grace's reply? He cannot refer the matter to a Sovereign
Pontiff, for no Pontiff in the Anglican Church is possessed of any
sovereignty whatsoever. In fact the Archbishop himself has to "verily
testify and declare that His Majesty the King is the only supreme
Governor in _spiritual_ and _ecclesiastical_ things as well as
temporal," etc.[6] Nor dare he solve these troublesome doubts himself:
for he is no more infallible than his questioner. Then what does he
do? Practically nothing. He throws the whole burden back upon poor
Mr. Maskell, and leaves him to struggle with his doubts as best he
may. Thus; though the Church _of God_ was established to "teach all
nations," and _must_ still be teaching all nations if she exist at
all; the Church _of England_ seems unable to teach one nation, or even
one man.
But to continue. The Archbishop begins by putting Mr. Maskell a
question. "Are they (_i.e._, the doctrines about which he is seeking
information) contained in the Word of God? St. Paul says, 'Preach the
Word'.... Now whether the doctrines concerning which you inquire are
contained in the Word of God, and can be proved thereby, _you have the
same means_ of discovering for yourself as I have, and I have no
special authority to declare."
Did any one ever witness such an exhibition of ineptitude and
spiritual asthenia? We can conceive a man rejecting all revelation. It
is possible even to conceive a man denying the Divinity of Christ. But
we know nothing that would ever enable us even to conceive that
Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Power had established a Church which
cannot teach, or had sent an ambassador utterly unable to deliver His
message. There is no use for such Church as that. Total silence is
better than incoherent speech. What is the consequence? The
consequence is that in the Anglican community endless variations and
differences exist and flourish side by side, not alone in matters
where differences are comparatively of little account, but in even the
most momentous and fundamental doctrines, such as the necessity of
Baptism, the power of Absolution, the nature of the Holy Eucharist,
the effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so forth. Were it not
for the iron hand of the State, which grasps her firmly, and binds her
mutually repellent elements together, she must have fallen to pieces
long ago. Now, we must beg our readers to consider well, that from the
very terms of the institution such a deplorable state of things as we
have been contemplating is absolutely impossible and unthinkable in
the Church (1) which _God-incarnate_ founded, _for the express
purpose of handing down His doctrine_, pure and undefiled to the end
of time; and (2) with which He promised to abide for ever; and (3)
which the Holy Ghost Himself, speaking through St. Paul, declared to
be "the pillar and ground of truth" (1. Tim. iii. 15). Nevertheless,
if the Catholic Church, numbering over 250,000,000 of persons, is not
to fall into the sad plight that has overtaken all the small churches
that have gone out from her, she must not only desire unity, as, no
doubt, all the sects desire it, but she must have been provided by her
all-wise Founder with what none of them even profess to possess,
_viz._, some simple, workable, and effective means of securing it.
This means, as practical as it is simple, is no other than one supreme
central and living authority, enjoying full jurisdiction over
all--that is to say, the authority of Peter, ever living in his See,
and speaking, now by the lips of Leo, and now by the lips of Pius, but
always in the name, and with the authority, and under the guidance of
Him who, in the plenitude of His divine power, made Peter the
immovable rock, against which the gates of hell may indeed expend
their fury, but against which they never have prevailed and never can
prevail. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against Thee." That any
one can fail to understand the meaning of these inspired words; that
any one can give them any application save that which they receive in
the Catholic Church, is but another illustration of the extraordinary
power of prejudice and pride to blind the reason and to darken the
understanding.
Without this final Court of Appeal, set up by the wisdom of God, the
Church would disintegrate and fall into pieces to-morrow. To remove
from the Church of Christ the infallibility of the Pope would be like
removing the hub from the wheel, the key-stone from the arch, the
trunk from the tree, the foundation from the house. For, in each case
the result must mean confusion. If such a result could ever have been
doubted in the past, it can surely be doubted no longer. The sad
experience of the past three hundred years speaks more eloquently than
any words; and its verdict is conclusive. It proves two things beyond
dispute. The _first_ is, that even the largest and most heterogeneous
body of men may be easily united and kept together, if they can all be
brought to recognise and obey one supreme authority; and the _second_
is, that, even a small and homogeneous body of men will soon divide
and split up into sections, if they cannot be brought to recognise
such an authority.
Further, any one looking out over the face of Christendom, with an
unprejudiced eye, for the realisation of that unity which Christ
promised to affix to his Church as an infallible sign of authenticity,
will find it in the Catholic Communion, but certainly nowhere
else--least of all in the Church of England.
"What," asks a well-known writer in unfeigned astonishment, "what
opinion is not held within the Established Church? Were not Dr.
Wilberforce and Dr. Colenso, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Baring equally
Bishops of the Church of England? Were not Dr. Pusey and Mr. Jowett
at the same time her professors; Father Ignatius and Mr. Bellew her
ministers; Archdeacon Denison and Dr. M'Neile her distinguished
ornaments and preachers? Yet their religions differed almost as widely
as Buddhism from Calvinism, or the philosophy of Aristotle from that
of Martin Tupper." If a Catholic priest were to teach a single
heretical doctrine, he would be at once cashiered, and turned out of
the Church. But "if an Anglican minister must resign because his
opinions are at variance with some other Anglican minister, every soul
of them would have to retire, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down
to the last licentiate of Durham or St. Bees".
As surely as infallibility is the essential prerogative of a divinely
constituted Teaching Church, so surely can it exist only in that
institution which alone has always claimed it, both as her gift by
promise and the sole explanation of her triumphs and her perpetuity.
It would be the idlest of dreams to search for it in a fractional part
of a modern community, like the Church of England, which had always
disowned and scoffed at it, and which could account for its own
existence ONLY on the plea that the Promises of God had
signally failed, and that _it_ alone was able to correct the failure.
Men ask for some sign, by which they may recognise the true Church of
God and discriminate it readily from all spurious imitations. God, in
His mercy, offers them a sign--namely UNITY. Yet they hesitate and
hold back, and refuse to guide their tempest-tossed barques by its
unerring light into the one Haven of Salvation.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 5: See Charge, etc., dated November, 1893.]
[Footnote 6: _Ang. Ministry_, by Hutton, p. 504.]