ENGLAND CONTINUED: SURVEY OF CHURCH PARTIES.
The Church of England has always been proud of the outward form of
unity. Her rigid view of the sin of schism has induced her to submit to
great elasticity of opinion and teaching rather than incur the
traditional disgrace of open division. But on this very account she has
never been free from internal strife. In everything but in name she has
been for centuries not one church, but several. Her entire history
discloses two tendencies balancing each other, and for the most part
reacting to great advantage. The Sacramentalist party represents
Romanizing tendencies, and is thoroughly devoted to "the sacramental
services and the offices of the church, especially as performed
according to the rubric." The Evangelical party is less formal, is in
harmony with the Articles, aims to keep up with the accumulating
religious wants of society, and lays stress upon the practical evidences
of Christian life. Under these two standards may be ranked all those
schools within the pale of the Church which have been growing into
prominence since the closing years of the eighteenth century. We will
only speak of the most influential parties, remembering, however, that
each of them is again subdivided into various sections.
THE LOW CHURCH. Within a short time after the Church of England gave
signs of religious awakening in consequence of the rise of the Wesleyan
movement, the triumph of evangelical tendencies was complete. "In less
than twenty years," says Conybeare, "the original battle-field was won,
and the enemy may be said to have surrendered at discretion.
Thenceforward, scarcely a clergyman was to be found in England who
preached against the doctrines of the creed. The faith of the church was
restored to the level of her formularies."[199] The revival was so
thorough that it gave rise to a zealous class which was called by its
friends the Evangelical Party, but by its enemies the Low Church.
The Low Church had its seat at Cambridge, and was conducted by vigorous
theologians, who were encouraged and aided by highly-respected and
leading laymen. Attaching new importance to the neglected doctrines,
their principal themes were "the universal necessity of conversion,"
"justification by faith," and "the sole authority of Scripture as the
rule of faith." They were worthy successors of the old Evangelical
party, represented by Milner, Martyn, and Wilberforce. Through their
agency there arose in the popular mind a dislike of ecclesiastical
landmarks, the state church fell into disrepute, the broadest
catholicity received hearty support, and personal piety was the
acknowledged test of true religion. In 1828 Lord Russell, the leader of
the Reform party, effected the abrogation of the Test Act,--a law which
required all officers, civil and military, to receive the sacrament
according to the usage of the Established church, and to take an oath
against transubstantiation within six months after their entrance into
office. The repeal immediately placed Dissenters and Catholics upon the
same footing with members of the Established church, and was in itself
sufficient to provoke opposition on the part of all who had not united
in the evangelical movement. But the antagonism became still more
decided when Parliament passed the Irish Church Property Act, in 1833,
in spite of the determined remonstrances of the bishops. One half of the
Irish bishoprics were thereby abrogated, Parliament assuming
ecclesiastical authority. The people supported the Parliament, and in
some instances public indignation was hurled at the bishops themselves.
The Low Church has always been on the side of popular reform. Not
forgetful of its lineal descent from that evangelical spirit which
animated Wilberforce, Stephen, Thornton, and Buxton, in their
philanthropic labors, it has sought out the population of the factories
and mines of England, and addressed itself to the relief of their
cramped and stifled inmates. It has reorganized Ragged-Schools, and
endeavored to reach all the suffering classes of the kingdom. Neither
has it been found unmindful of the wants of the heathen world, for no
sooner did the Low Church commence its public career than it founded the
Church Missionary Society, which has established over one hundred and
forty-eight missionary stations, sustains two hundred and sixty-six
clergymen, and includes about twenty thousand members.[200] These labors
have been abundantly successful, for besides the converted towns on the
coast of Africa, "whole districts of Southern India have embraced the
faith; and the native population of New Zealand (spread over a territory
as large as England) has been reclaimed from cannibalism and added to
the church." The same party was chiefly instrumental in establishing the
British and Foreign Bible Society, which has translated the Scriptures
into one hundred and fifty languages, and distributes over two millions
of copies annually.
The Low Church party was the first to tell England that her population
had far outgrown her places of worship, and it accordingly devised means
to remedy the evil. Archbishop Sumner founded the first Diocesan Church
Building Society, in 1828; and after becoming Bishop of Chester
consecrated more than two hundred new churches. Mr. Simeon of Cambridge
had previously set the example of caring for the unchurched population
by his personal labors and the outlay of his large private fortune. His
name is now like "ointment poured forth" among the inhabitants of Bath,
Clifton, Bradford, and other places. The Pastoral Aid Society was
founded in 1836, and by its lay and clerical employees, is now
ministering to the spiritual wants of over three millions of souls. The
Low Churchmen have also established, in needy localities, Sunday
Schools, Infant Schools, Lending Libraries, Benefit Societies, Clothing
Clubs, and Circles of Scripture Readers. From the ranks of this party
have arisen devout and zealous preachers, who, without any great natural
endowments, have given their hearts to the work of saving souls.
Hamilton Forsyth, Spencer Thornton, and Henry Fox,--the follower of
Henry Martyn to Southern India,--are names which will ever adorn the
history of the Church of England.[201]
At the present time the Low Church is leading the van within the
Establishment, in all those movements which have the stamp of true
piety. It is seeking out the abandoned and homeless wretches in the
darkest sinks of London, reading the Bible to them, clothing, finding
work, and training them to self-respect. Some of its clergy are among
the most gifted and influential in Great Britain, whether at the
editor's table, in the pulpit, or on the platform. The lofty position
they have lately taken against the inroads of Rationalism entitles them
to the thanks and admiration of Christendom.
Within the Low Church there are two subdivisions. The first is the
Recordite party, so called from its organ. It intensifies the doctrines
of the Low Church; on justification by faith it builds its view of the
worthlessness of morality; on conversion by grace its predestinarian
fatalism; and on the supremacy of Scripture its dogma of verbal
inspiration. It holds strong Biblical views on the sanctity of the
Sabbath, and both by the pulpit and the press, opposes the
secularization of the Lord's day. The other party is sneeringly called
the "Low and Slow," and corresponds with a similar faction within the
High Church which enjoys the sobriquet of the "High and Dry."
After the evangelical movement had fully taken root there arose an
antagonistic tendency; it was the old Sacramentalist party re-asserting
itself. Oxford arrayed itself against Cambridge. The views of Laud had
always found favor in the former seat of learning, and their adherents
felt that the time had now come for their vigorous revival. They
directed their opposition equally against Parliamentary usurpation and
evangelical liberalism. The centre of the counter-movement was Oriel
College, which, under Whately, Hampden, and Thomas Arnold, was already
celebrated for its new spirit of free scientific inquiry. Keble, Pusey,
Froude, and J. H. Newman, were here associated either as fellows or
students. Froude recognized the truth of the saying of Vicentius: "_Quod
semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est._" He rose above his
friends as leader of the whole movement.
The Conference which convened at Hadley, was the first organized
demonstration against the evangelical portion of the Low Church. Its
initiative act was the adoption of a catechism which contained the views
of the High Churchmen, and was the first issue of the celebrated series
of Tracts which gave to the new movement the name of Tractarianism. It
was published in 1833, and the last of the series, the ninetieth,
appeared seven years afterward. Newman and Pusey were the chief writers.
Pusey preached a sermon in 1843 which avowed, with only slight
modifications, the doctrine of transubstantiation; in consequence of
which he was deposed from preaching to the university for the space of
two years. The Romish church received flattering eulogy from all the
High Churchmen or Tractarians. It was represented by them as the
embodiment of all that was grand, imposing, and sound in art, poetry, or
theology. When Newman went over to its fold, Pusey said of him: "He has
been called to labor in another part of the Lord's vineyard." The High
Church went so far in its opposition to the Low that many attached to
the former felt more attracted to Roman Catholicism than to any form of
Protestantism. Accordingly, at the close of 1846, one hundred and fifty
clergymen and distinguished laymen had gone over to Popery.
The doctrines of the High Church may be divided into two classes: the
material, or justification by sacraments; and the formal, or the
authority of the church.
While it declares that we are justified by faith, it also holds that we
are judged by works. Men are converted by grace, but Christians are
regenerated by baptism. The Scriptures are supreme authority, but the
"church hath authority in controversies of faith," by virtue of its
apostolic descent. The watchwords of the High Church are, therefore,
judgment by works; baptismal regeneration; church authority; and
apostolical succession. Faith, it claims, does not justify us in and of
itself, but simply brings us to God, who then justifies us by his free
grace. Baptism is regeneration; in the New Testament the new birth is
always connected with it; we are not born of faith, or of love, or of
prayer, but by water and the Spirit. All Tractarians believe in the real
presence of Christ, and only differ as to the mode in which he is
present. The consecrated elements become really the body and blood of
Christ by virtue of the consecrating word, though the change takes place
in a spiritual and inexpressible way. Christ is a kind Saviour to those
who partake of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper worthily, but a harsh
judge to those who do it unworthily.
High Churchmen hold that the Church is a saving institution founded by
Christ, and continued by apostolical succession. It is the only mediator
of salvation in Christ in so far as it is the only dispenser of the
means of grace, the only protectress and witness of the truth, and the
highest authority in matters of faith and practice. There are three
tests of the true Church: _first_, apostolicity, or the divine origin of
the Church and its succession of apostles; _second_, catholicity, or the
truth in matters of instruction and life communicated through the
succession of the apostles, the truth in matters of faith and life as
interpreted by Scripture and tradition; and, _third_, autonomy, or the
absolute independence and supreme authority of the Church in faith and
practice.
Apostolical succession was the first dogma in which all High Churchmen
united. Connected with this opinion is the idea that the priesthood is
the only mediatorial office between Christ and the congregation. The
bishops are the spiritual sons of the apostles, and should be respected
for their office' sake; Christ is the Mediator above, but his servant,
the bishop, is his image on earth.[202] The Church has authority to
forgive sins by the new birth, and to bring souls from hell to
heaven.[203] Tradition must be respected not less than the Bible itself;
the Old and New Testaments are the fountain of the doctrines, and the
catholic fathers the channel through which they flow down to us.[204]
The Bible must be explained, not by individual opinion, but by the
church; for the Church is its rightful interpreter.
It must be said, in justice to the High Church, that while it attaches
great weight to these views it does not discard those really important.
It does not overlook the doctrines maintained by the majority of
evangelical Christians. The moderate members of this party, especially,
do not hold them as "the basis of their system, but only as secondary
and ornamental details. Even against Dissenters they are not rigidly
enforced. The hereditary non-conformist is not excluded from salvation.
Foreign Protestants are even owned as brethren, though a mild regret is
expressed that they lack the blessing of an authorized church
government. Apostolical succession is not practically made essential to
the being of a church, but rather cherished as a dignified and ancient
pedigree, connecting our English episcopate with primitive antiquity,
and binding the present to the past by a chain of filial piety. In the
same hands, church authority is reduced to little more than a claim to
that deference which is due from the ignorant to the learned, from the
taught to the teacher."[205]
Of the general service rendered by the High Churchmen, the same writer
says, "Their system gives freer scope to the feelings of reverence, awe,
and beauty than that of their opponents. They endeavor, and often
successfully, to enlist these feelings in the service of piety. Music,
painting, and architecture, they consecrate as the handmaids of
religion. Thus they attract an order of men chiefly found among the most
cultivated classes, whose hearts must be reached through their
imagination rather than their understanding.... In the same spirit the
writers of this party have contributed to the religious literature of
the day many admirable works which under the guise of fiction teach the
purest Christianity, and exemplify its bearing in every detail of common
life. To the training of childhood especially they have rendered most
valuable aid, by thus embodying the precepts of the Gospel. But we need
not do more than allude to works so universally known and valued as
those of Miss Sewell, Mr. Adams, and Bishop Wilberforce. Again the
revival of the High Church party has effected an important improvement
among the clergy. Many of these were prejudiced by hereditary dislike
against the doctrines and the persons of the Evangelicals, and by this
prejudice, were repelled from religion. But under the name of orthodoxy
and the banner of High Church, they have willingly received truth
against which, had it come to them in another shape, they would have
closed their ears and hearts. A better spirit has thus been breathed
into hundreds who but for this new movement would have remained as their
fathers were before them, mere Nimrods, Ramrods, or Fishing-rods."[206]
Of all the men engaged in the Tractarian enterprise there was no one in
whose religious and personal history a deeper public interest
concentrated than in John Henry Newman. His ardent espousal of the High
Church cause collected many friends about him at the same time that it
organized numerous enemies. But he did not inquire concerning the number
of his friends or foes, for he valued sincerity higher than favor or
opposition. His previous history was not without incident. Thirteen
years before the _Tracts for the Times_ were published, he had been
engaged in a controversy concerning baptismal regeneration, in which he
defended the evangelical side.[207] Subject to various inner conflicts,
and greatly influenced by the party-spirit which ran high, he finally
entered the communion of the Roman Catholic Church. His view of the
development of Christian doctrine is very favorable to his adopted
faith. Development can be applied to anything which has real vital
power; it is the key that unlocks the mystery of all growth; any
philosophy or policy, Christianity included, requires time for its
comprehension and perfection. The highest truths of inspiration needed
only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation, for
perfection can be reached only by trials and sore conflicts. A
philosophy or sect is purer and stronger when its channel has grown deep
and broad by the flow of time. Its vital element needs disengagement
from that which is foreign and temporary, and its beginning is no
measure of its capabilities or scope. At first no one knows what it is
or what it is worth, since it seems in suspense which way to go; but
notwithstanding this, it strikes out and develops all its hidden world
of force. Surrounding things change, but these changes only contribute
to its development. Here below, to live is to change, and to be perfect
is to have changed often. This is all true of Christianity; the lapse of
years, instead of injuring it, has only brought out its power.[208]
These hints furnish a specimen of the ideal robe in which Father Newman
clothes Romanism. But it will take a stronger intellect than his to show
any harmony between his theory of development and the history of the
papacy. He has once more assumed the pen of the controversialist. In the
January number of _Macmillan's Magazine_, 1864, Kingsley, in a review of
Froude's History of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, said, "Truth for its
own sake has never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman
informs us that it need not be, and, on the whole, ought not to be; that
cunning is the weapon which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith to
withstand the brute man's force of the wicked world, which marries and
is given in marriage." The venerable Father being thus assailed has
given vent to his indignation by a defense of his life, under the title
of _Apologia Pro Vita Sua_. It abounds in rare touches of satire; while
Kingsley, in his reply, indicates excitement and bitterness.
The younger brother, Francis William Newman, has led a sad and changeful
life. It has many features in common with Blanco White, both of whom
betray the destructive absence of a positive evangelical faith. In some
skeptics there is a strength of will which gives a successful appearance
to their cause in spite of all their doubts; but when the will is
subjected to the domination of opinion; when religion, whether true or
false, is not an appendage but the principle of life, the power of mere
sentiment is fully manifested. The younger Newman is an illustration of
the position in which one is left when he throws himself into the arms
of a false creed.
He reveals his inner life in the _Phases of Faith_, one of the most
touching pieces of biography in the realm of literature. While a student
at Oxford, he became enamored with the "Oriel heresy about Sunday." One
by one the views of the standard authorities of the Church lost their
hold upon him, and he imbibed the opinion that the Old Testament is not
really the rule of life, according to the Pauline idea; infant baptism
is an excrescence of a post-apostolic age, and Wall's attempt to trace
it to the Apostles a decided failure; Episcopacy has been so
contemptibly represented by incumbents, some of whom opposed the
Missionary and Bible Societies, that it is not entitled to respect; and
the Church Fathers are greatly overrated, Clement alone being
respectable.
Unable to find any theological resting-place, Newman went as a
quasi-missionary to Bagdad. He returned to Oxford and gave himself up to
his increasing doubts. Finally, becoming a Unitarian, the Scriptures
present new difficulties; Christianity has been too highly praised and
flattered; and has had the credit of doing a great deal which it has had
no share in effecting. The Bible has not been found able to cope with
fresh evils; and Romanism became corrupt and vicious with that book in
the hands of the priesthood. But dissatisfied as Newman is with the
present, he takes a cheerful look upon the future. "The age is ripe," he
says, "for something better, for a religion which shall combine the
tenderness, humility, and disinterestedness which are the glory of the
present Christianity, with that activity of intellect, untiring pursuit
of truth, and strict adherence to impartial principle which the schools
of modern science embody. When a spiritual church has its senses
exercised to discern good and evil, judges of right and wrong by an
inward power, proves all things, and holds fast that which is good,
fears no truth, but rejoices in being corrected, intellectually as well
as morally, it will not be liable to 'be carried to and fro' by shifting
wind of doctrine. It will indeed have movement, namely, a steady
_onward_ one, as the schools of science have had since they left off to
dogmatize, and approached God's world as learners; but it will lay aside
disputes of words, eternal vacillations, mutual ill-will and dread of
new light, and will be able, without hypocrisy, to proclaim 'peace on
earth and good will toward men,' even toward those who reject its
beliefs and sentiments concerning God and his glory."[209]
THE FIRST BROAD CHURCH. The division of the Broad Church into two
parties has been produced by the recent discussion. The First Broad
Church corresponds in the main with philosophical Rationalism. It
commenced with Coleridge, was interpreted principally by Hare, was
defended by the chaste and vigorous pen of Arnold, and is now
represented by Maurice, Kingsley, and Stanley. It cannot be said to have
a distinct creed. Its members being attached to the Established Church,
they are distinguished peculiarly for their method of interpretation of
the articles of faith. "The Broad Church teachers give us readings of
each dogma of the Atonement and Future Punishment."[210] They avow the
main doctrines of the Gospel, but in such a modified sense that, they
say, the same were held virtually by all Christians in every age; by
Loyola and Xavier, not less than by Latimer and Ridley. They conceive
the essence of Popery to consist, not in points of metaphysical
theology, but in the ascription of magic virtue to outward acts. All who
believe the Scriptures are, in their opinion, members of the household
of faith. Salvation does not depend upon the ritual but upon the life;
the fruits of the Spirit are the sole criteria of the Spirit's presence.
They give prominence to the idea of the visible Church when they hold
the Church to be a Society divinely instituted for the purpose of
manifesting God's presence, and bearing witness to his attributes, by
their reflection in its ordinances and in its members. If its ideal were
fully embodied in its actual constitution "it would remind us daily of
God, and work upon the habits of our life as insensibly as the air we
breathe."[211] For this end, it would revive "daily services, frequent
communions, memorials of our Christian calling, presented to our notice
in crosses and wayside oratories; commemorations to holy men of all
times and countries; religious orders, especially of women, of different
kinds and under different rules, delivered only from the snare and sin
of perpetual vows."[212]
The special defender of these views of the visible Church, the late Dr.
Thomas Arnold, of Rugby, was a man of great industry, profound
erudition, and extraordinary power and tact in the management of youth.
His sermons, delivered to his pupils at Rugby, were short, and usually
written just before delivery in the school-chapel on Sabbath
afternoons.[213] He interested himself in all questions of reform,
education, politics, and literature. But he is best known as one of the
leaders of the Broad Church, and in this light his theological opinions
may be considered a fair sample of the theology adopted by that party in
its earlier and purer days. With him, inspiration is not equivalent to a
communication of the divine perfections. Paul expected the world would
come to an end in the generation then existing. The Scripture narratives
are not only about divine things, but are themselves divinely framed and
superintended. Inspiration does not raise a man above his own time, nor
make him, even in respect to that which he utters when inspired, perfect
in goodness and wisdom; but it so overrules his language that it shall
contain a meaning more than his own mind was conscious of, and thus give
to it a character of divinity, and a power of perpetual
application.[214]
According to Arnold, Christ was the sum of the Bible, and the centre of
all truth. We cannot come to God directly; Christ is to us in place of
God; and he is God, for to hold the contrary would be idolatry. Christ
suffered for the Church, not only as a man may suffer for man by being
involved in evils through the fault of another, and by his example
awakening in others a spirit of like patience and self-devotion, but in
a higher and more complete sense, as suffering for them, the just for
the unjust, that they, for his sake, should be regarded by God as
innocent. In a deep sense of moral evil, more, perhaps, than in anything
else, a saving knowledge of God abides. Sin must not be lightly
considered. Christ's death shows it to be an exceeding evil; and the
actions of whole days and weeks, passed as they are by too many in utter
carelessness, are nothing but one mass of sin; and no one thing in them
has been sanctified by the thought of God or of Christ.
The penalty of sin, according to Arnold, is one of the revelations of
Scripture which men are least inclined to hear. It will be true of every
one of us, that, unless we turn to Christ, it had been better that we
were never born. If we fail of the grace of God there is reserved for us
an indescribable misery. Conversion is the development of Christian
life. It is growth. We must be changed during the three score and ten
years of our life, not in the twinkling of an eye, but through a long
period of prayer and watchfulness, laboring slowly and with difficulty
to get rid of our evil nature.[215] By constant repentance and faith we
ripen for heaven. Justification by faith is a reliance on what God has
done for us; faith in Christ is not only faith in his having died for
us, but in him as our present Saviour by his life. It is throwing
ourselves upon him in all things, as our Redeemer, Saviour, Head, of
whom we are members, and desire our life only for Him. Our dependence in
Christ is not once only, but perpetual.
Arnold attached paramount importance to a proper understanding of the
Church and its relations to the State. He held that the work of a
Christian Church and State is absolutely one and the same, and that the
full development of the former in its perfect form as the Kingdom of
God, will be an effectual means for the removal of all evil and the
promotion of good. There can be no perfect Church or State without their
blending into one.[216] The Church, during her imperfect state, is
deficient in power; the State, in the like condition is deficient in
knowledge; one judges amiss of man's highest happiness, the other
discerns it truly, but has not the power on a large scale to attain it.
But when blended into one, the power and knowledge become happily
united; the Church has become sovereign, and the State has become
Christian.[217] The Church has its living and redeemed members; it may
have those who are craving to be admitted within its shelter, being
convinced that God is in it of a truth; but beyond these, he who is not
with it is against it.[218]
In intimate connection with Arnold stands the name of his friend and
biographer, Arthur P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, for some years a
writer of celebrity in England. Two late volumes on the _Eastern_ and
_Jewish Churches_ have given him a standing occupied by few theologians
in the old or the new world. His style is gorgeous and enchanting, and
his Rationalistic tendencies so subdued and covert that few would
suspect him of sympathy with the Broad Church theology of the last ten
years' growth. In his work on _Sinai and Palestine_ he aimed to
delineate the outward events of the Old and New Testament in such a way
that they should come home with a new power to those who, by long
familiarity, had almost ceased to regard them as historical truth; and
so to bring out their inward spirit that the more complete realization
of their outward form should not degrade but exalt the faith of which
they are the vehicle. But in subsequent works, Dean Stanley has clearly
departed from an evangelical position, and we now find him in open
sympathy with the Broad Church. This tendency was foreshadowed in his
_History of the Jewish Church_. He describes miracles as one who prefers
to omit, rather than state, his real objections to their reception. He
seems to believe in Israel as an inspired people, more than in the Old
Testament as a plenarily inspired book. He allows searching criticism
into the Hebrew text, and does not seem disturbed by evidences of
errors, contradictions, and phantasy. He does not know whether the
Israelites were in Egypt two hundred and fifteen, four hundred and
thirty, or one thousand years,--thus leaving an important question
unsettled. Neither does he decide, with or against Colenso, whether the
number of armed Israelites who left Egypt was six hundred or six hundred
thousand men. He implies that monotheism was unknown before Abraham, and
that the name Jehovah was not known to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. He
cannot tell how the Israelites were supported in their journeyings; and
ascribes the priesthood to an Egyptian origin. If we only admit the
above arithmetical errors, and give up the Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch, he thinks we should remove at one stroke some of the main
difficulties of the Mosaic narrative.[219]
But Stanley has exposed his Broad Church sympathies more in a late
review article than in any formal volume.[220] It is a discussion of the
judicial proceedings in connection with two authors of the _Essays and
Reviews_. His theme permits a wide range, and he therefore dwells at
length upon the whole question of ministerial teaching. He considers the
final acquittal of the essayists one of the most gratifying events of
the day. According to him, the questions raised by the work are, with
few exceptions, of a kind altogether beside and beyond the range over
which the formularies of the Church extend. No passage in any of the
five clerical essayists contradicts any of the formularies of the Church
in a degree at all comparable to the direct collision which exists
between the High Church party and the Articles, or the Low Church party
and the Prayer-Book; on the points debated in the _Essays and Reviews_
the Articles and Prayer-Book are alike silent. Stanley rejoices that of
the thirty-two charges presented against Mr. Wilson and Dr. Williams all
were dismissed but five, and that for these "there was no heavier
penalty than a year's suspension." He is in ecstacy that the judgment in
the case of these two men has established the legal position of those
who have always claimed the right of free inquiry and latitude of
opinion equally for themselves and for both the other sections of the
Church. By the issue of the litigation, he claims that great victories
have been won, that henceforth ample freedom is left to all detailed
criticism of the Sacred Text, so long as the canonicity of no canonical
book is denied, and that the questions whether there be "one Isaiah or
two, two Zechariahs or three, who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
who wrote the Pentateuch, whether Job and Josiah be historical or
parabolical, whether the Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah or the Second
Psalm be directly or indirectly prophetic, what are the precise limits
of the natural and practical, what is the weight of internal and
external evidence, whether the Apocalypse refers to the Emperor Nero or
to the Pope of Rome; are to be settled according to the individual
opinion of every clergyman of the Established Church." Stanley sneers at
the Declaration of the Oxford Committee sent to every Clergyman of
England and Ireland, "with an adjuration, for the love of God and out of
duty to the souls of men, to sign it." That Declaration was a protest
against the acquittal of the Essayists; and Stanley rejoices over the
fact, that, though "every influence was used to get signatures to it,
and was so concealed as to enlist the support of High and Low Church
parties," the result was the signature of only one third of the London
clergy, nine Professors at Oxford and one at Cambridge, eight out of the
thirty English deans, two of the Head Masters of the Public Schools, and
only six out of the fifty clerical contributors to Smith's _Dictionary
of the Bible_; that more than one half of the rural clergy stood
altogether aloof from the document; and that when it was presented at
Lambeth only four of the twenty-eight Bishops loaned their countenance
to its formal reception. Stanley looks into the future and sees
permanent blessings bestowed upon the country by the "timely decision of
the highest Court of Appeal" that it has "no jurisdiction or authority
to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought in any particular
to be the doctrine of the Church of England, since its duty extends only
to the consideration of that which is by law established to be the
doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true and legal construction
of her Articles and formularies." He is also pleased that the Supreme
Court of Appeal has refused to pledge itself and the Church to any
popular theory of the mode of justification or of the future punishment
of the wicked; and that it now stands declared that it is no doctrine of
the Church of England that "every part of the Bible is inspired, or is
the word of God." The Dean also looks with complacency upon what he
declares to be a fact, and which we are startled to hear; that "the
belief in endless punishment is altogether fluctuating, or else
expresses itself in forms wholly untenable ... that the doctrine of
endless torments, if held, is not practically taught by the vast
majority of the Clergymen of England."
The First Broad Church will not accept entirely the theology contained
in the _Essays and Reviews_, and complains of them that they are "almost
entirely negative; hinting at faults in the prevalent religious opinions
of the day, but not investigating them; indicating dislike to certain
obligations which are imposed upon clergymen, but not stating or
considering what those obligations are; leaving an impression upon
devout Christians that something in their faith is untenable when they
want to find in it what is tenable; suggesting that earnest infidels in
this day have much to urge in behalf of their doubts and difficulties;
never fairly asking what they have to urge, what are their doubts and
difficulties."[221]
On the other hand, the First Broad Church will not unite in the
organized opposition to that work, because the denunciations and appeals
"took an almost entirely negative form; they contradicted and slandered
objections; they were not assertions of a belief; they led Christians
away from the Bible, from the creeds which they confess to certain
notions about the creeds, from practice to disputation. They met no real
doubts in the minds of unbelievers; they only called for the
suppression of all doubts. They confounded the opinions of the day with
the faith once delivered to the saints. They tended to make anonymous
journalists the law-givers of the Church. They tended to discourage
clergymen from expressing manfully what is in their hearts, lest they
should incur the charge of being unfaithful to their vows. They tended
to hinder all serious and honest co-operation between men who are not
bound together in a sectarian agreement, lest they should make
themselves responsible for opinions different from their own."[222]
Thus, while the First Broad Church occupies a neutral ground in the
controversy now rending the whole structure of English theology, its
moral force is all against Evangelical Christianity, and in favor of the
usurpations of Rationalism.
But the theology maintained by the First Broad Church is little above
that contained in the _Essays and Reviews_ and similar Rationalistic
publications. With them, the Scriptures are better than any other books
of antiquity because they contain the most of God's will, not because
they alone contain his will. "These books," says a writer, "have been
filtered out, as it were, under his guidance, from many others which, in
ages gone by, claimed a place beside them, and are now forgotten, while
these have stood for thousands of years, and are not likely to be set
aside now."[223] They are indifferent as to their date, authorship, or
contents. "Men may satisfy themselves," the same writer continues,
"perhaps if I have time to give to the study, they may satisfy me--that
the Pentateuch was the work of twenty men; that Baruch wrote a part of
Isaiah; that David did not write the Psalms, or the evangelists the
gospels; that there are interpolations here and there in the original;
that there are numerous and serious errors in our translation. What is
all this to me? What do I care who wrote them, what is the date of them,
what this or that passage ought to be? They have told me what I wanted
to know. Burn every copy in the world to-morrow, you don't and can't
take that knowledge from me, or any man."[224]
The Mosaic cosmogony is not a matter of great consequence, but on a par
with other cosmogonies, none of which are of any intrinsic value. "If
all cosmogonies were to disappear to-morrow," says Thomas Hughes, "I
should be none the poorer." The various difficulties of Scripture are
not of sufficient moment to occupy much time or pains. Let the people be
made to understand the liberal interpretations of what the cultivated
teachers have to say, and that will be enough to meet the world's wants.
Perhaps it is with secret admiration of Bunsen's _Bible Work_, the
greatest exegetical triumph of Rationalism, that Kingsley asks: "Who
shall write us a people's commentary of the Bible?"
Redemption is accepted in the Coleridgean sense. It is a term which does
not express a Scriptural fact, but is borrowed from earthly
transactions. Christ's work in our behalf is of no special value in
itself, its known effects being all that make it of moment to the human
family.[225] We should look at the results and not at the cause. The
sacrifice which Christ made was one of obedience to his Father's will;
it does not free us and elevate us above the curse of a broken law, for,
in a certain sense, the law has never been broken to the extent that
the evangelicals claim, nor does eternal punishment harmonize with
enlightened and liberal notions of Divine mercy. Miracles are in danger
of being worshiped by the friends of revelation. They have the
misfortune of an improper term; wonders would be a far better word. Why
not accept them in the domain of faith, since we meet with them in
science?[226] Miracles of this kind, "wonders," are willingly conceded,
for they are not suspensions or violations of the order of nature, but
natural phenomena, whose laws we may not understand. The miracles of the
New Testament are purely natural; but the people did not comprehend the
laws which gave them birth, and hence they magnified them. "Where the
people believed," says Mr. Davies, "rightly or wrongly, in evil spirits
and sorcery, in malignant and disorderly influences proceeding from the
spiritual world, there the powers of the true kingdom, the powers of
order and freedom and beneficence, were put forth in acts which appealed
directly to the minds of the ignorant and superstitious, and which
proclaimed an authority stronger than that of demons. The common
multitudes of Judea were of the class which thus required to be treated
like spoiled and frightened children."[227]
THE SECOND BROAD CHURCH. This party maintains the avowed Rationalism of
Jowett, the _Essays and Reviews_, and Colenso. Miss Cobbe, in defining
the points of difference between it and the First Broad Church, says of
the latter, "It holds that the doctrines of the Bible and the church can
be perfectly harmonized with the results of modern thought by a new but
legitimate exegesis of the Bible and interpretation of church formulæ.
The Second Broad Church seems prepared to admit that in many cases they
can only be harmonized by the sacrifice of biblical infallibility. The
First Broad Church has recourse, to harmonize them, to various logical
processes, but principally to the one described in the last chapter, of
diverting the student, at all difficult points, from criticism to
edification. The Second Broad Church uses no ambiguity, but frankly
avows that when the Bible contradicts science, the Bible must be in
error. The First Broad Church maintains that the inspiration of the
Bible differs in _kind_ as well as in _degree_ from that of other books.
The Second Broad Church appears to hold that it differs in degree but
not in kind. This last is the crucial point of the differences of the
two parties, and of one of the most important controversies of modern
times."[228] The First Broad Church has made antagonism to the doctrine
of endless punishment one of its great specialties, while the Second
Broad Church has made its most violent assaults upon the evangelical
view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The position of the latter is
not fully defined. We may suppose, however, that in due time its
apologists will assume an organized form, and perhaps produce their
systematic theology.
We regret that the general opposition on the part of the clergy to the
theology of the _Essays and Reviews_, on the first appearance of that
work, has not been sustained. The Broad Church has therefore acquired
many new adherents within the last two years. It is impossible to
classify all the parties according to their exact numerical strength,
and their approximate proportions, in round numbers, must answer our
purpose. The clergy of the Church of England, exclusive of the Irish,
amount at present to about twenty thousand, at home and abroad.[229]
Making allowance for two thousand peasant clergy in the mountain
districts, and missionaries in foreign lands, the remaining eighteen
thousand may be classified as follows:
{ Normal Type,--Anglican, 3,600
High Church. { Exaggerated Type,--Tractarian, 1,000
{ Stagnant Type,--High and Dry, 2,500
{ Normal Type,--Evangelical, 3,500
Low Church. { Exaggerated Type,--Recordite, 2,600
{ Stagnant Type,--Low and Slow, 700
{ Normal Type,--Theoretical and Anti-Theoretical, 3,100
Broad Church. { Exaggerated Type,--Extreme Rationalists, 300
{ Stagnant Type, 700
Twelve years ago the twenty-eight Bishops and Archbishops of England
stood thus: thirteen belonged to the High Church, ten to the Broad
Church, and five to the Low Church. A distribution made at the present
time would be much more favorable to the second party.[230]
It is a remarkable feature of the activity of theological opinion in
England that the same division of parties which exists in the
Established Church also obtains in other religious bodies. We do not
speak of the Dissenting Churches, all of which have their shades of
sentiment, but of the smaller and less influential organizations. The
Jews, Roman Catholics, Quakers, and Unitarians have each their old and
new schools,--the former adhering to the old and established standards,
the latter striving to harmonize with modern science and free inquiry.
The Jews have their Mosaic, Talmudic, and Phillipsohnic groups,--the
last taking its name from its leader, and corresponding with the First
Broad Church within the pale of Christianity.[231] The Rationalistic
party in the Roman Catholic Church is now aiming to harmonize Popery and
the philosophy of the nineteenth century. It has no distinctive name,
but numbers many adherents. The Quakers, besides possessing a strongly
conservative wing, have their advocates of the "Inner Light," who are
pushing this destructive doctrine "to the full consequences developed by
the Second Broad Church party in the National Church." The Unitarians
are divided into the staid disciples of Priestley and Belsham, and the
New School, who stand on the same ground with Theodore Parker in the
United States. These are cordial admirers of the _Essays and Reviews_,
and would rejoice to see the land overspread with radical Rationalism.
FOOTNOTES:
[199] _Essays Ecclesiastical and Social_, pp. 62-63.
[200] _Christian Work_, June, 1863.
[201] Conybeare, _Essays Ecclesiastical and Social_, pp. 65-71.
[202] _Tract No. 10._
[203] Sewel.
[204] Pusey, _Preface to 18th vol. Library of Church Fathers_.
[205] Conybeare, _Essays Ecclesiastical and Social_, p. 106.
[206] _Essays Ecclesiastical and Social_, pp. 106-108.
[207] _National Review_, Oct., 1856.
[208] _Development of Christian Doctrine._ Second Edition. London, 1846.
[209] _Phases of Faith_, pp. 233, 234. American Edition.
[210] Miss Cobbe, _Broken Lights_, p. 63. London Edition.
[211] Arnold, _Sermons_, vol. iv., p. 307.
[212] Ibid. _Introduction_, p. 56.
[213] _Bibliotheca Sacra._ Jan. 1858. An excellent summary of the
opinions of Dr. Arnold.
[214] Stanley, _Life and Correspondence of Arnold_. American Edition, p.
135.
[215] _Interpretation of Scripture_, p. 493.
[216] Stanley, _Life and Correspondence_, pp. 341, 367.
[217] _Fragment on the Church_, p. 226.
[218] _Christian Life, its Course, &c._, p. 358.
[219] _American Theological Review_, July, 1863.
[220] _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1864.
[221] Miss Cobbe, _Broken Lights_, p. 63. London Edition.
[222] _Tracts for Priests and People._ Preface, pp. 3-5. Am. Edition.
[223] Hughes, in _Tracts for Priests and People_, p. 28.
[224] Hughes, in _Tracts for Priests and People_, p. 37.
[225] Garden, _Tracts for Priests and People_, p. 133.
[226] Davies, _Tracts for Priests and People_, p. 167.
[227] Ibid. p. 167.
[228] _Broken Lights_, pp. 73-74.
[229] Appleton's _American Cyclopædia_. Art. _Church of England_. Though
the writer of this article says nothing of the Irish clergy, he has not
included them, of course; having no doubt used the Clergy List of
England and the colonies alone.
[230] We have based our division of the English clergy upon the
calculation of the late W. J. Conybeare, a Fellow in the University of
Cambridge, and joint author with J. S. Howson, of _Life and Epistles of
St. Paul_. (_Essays Ecclesiastical and Social_, pp. 157-158.) His
figures applied to the year 1853, but we have included the subsequent
increase of the clergy, and distributed the additional members according
to the best information at command. If it be objected that we have
classed too large a portion in the Broad Church, we reply, that if Dean
Stanley's intimations concerning the absence of orthodox faith in the
English clergy be well founded, we have fallen far short of attributing
to that body a sufficient number of members. See his article in
_Edinburgh Review_, July, 1864.
[231] Phillipsohn, Author of the _Religious Idea in Judaism, Islam, and
Christianity_. Translated by Miss Ann Goldschmidt.