of Anglicanism, and an unanswerable defence of the Catholic . pretends that his communion is at least a branch of the Catholic Church. He professes to believe, - if he is of the High Church party, that our Lord founded a church, one and catholic, out of which, in the ordinary course of God's gracious providence, salvation is not attainable. But is his communion this church, or at least a living branch of it; or is this church the one in communion with the See of Rome? This is the question. How shall it be answered ? There are certain marks or notes by which the Church of Christ may be recognized and distinguished from all other bodies or pretended churches. These notes are enumerated in the Nicene Creed, which the Anglican professes to believe and to hold authoritative, and are Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, — Credo unam sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. If all these notes are united in the Anglican Establishment, she is the church of the Nicene Creed, the Church of God, and Spouse of the Lamb ; but if she want any one of them, and certainly if she want them all, she is not that church, is no part or branch of it, and, properly speaking, no church at all. On the other hand, if they are all united in the Roman Church, then she is the church of the Nicene Creed, the Church of God, and only those in communion with her are in communion with Christ or in the way of salvation. The object of the book is to show that none of these notes are the possession of Anglicanism, and that they are each and all the erclusive possession of the church in communion with the successor of St. Peter, the supreme and visible Head of the Church and Vicar of our Lord on earth. It shows this in a pleasing and convincing manner, and leaves little to be desired. The author proves very clearly that Anglicanism is neither one nor holy, neither Catholic nor Apostolic, but he seems partially to concede at least some degree of sanctity to individual members of its communion. - In claiming,” he says. (p. 63), “this note of sanctity as the exclusive possession of the Roman Church, I do not of course mean that there is nothing which might be called by that name to be found in the Church of England ; sanctity, unlike unity, admits of degrees, and I should suppose there is no body of Christians, I had almost said, no body of worshippers of any religion whatever, among whom there does not exist something which at least seems akin to it.” This is rather loosely expressed, and may mean simply, that, though sanctity, truly and properly so called, belongs exclusively to the Church, yet it is not denied that there is that to be found in other communions which has many of its external characteristics, and may be sometimes supposed to be it, but which, in fact, is only its counterfeit ; and so understood, it expresses nothing objectionable. But it may also be construed to mean, that, though sanctity, indeed, in its higher degree, in its heroic form, is found only in the Roman Church, yet it is not denied but it may in some of its lower forms, in its elements at least, be found in communions external and hostile to her. That this last is the meaning of the author is probable, since he asserts that sanctity admits of degrees, which he would have had no occasion to do, if he bad intended to concede no degree of sanctity to individuals in the Anglican communion. If this be his real meaning, it needs some qualification. It is no reproach to the author, that he should mistake the Catholic faith or theology on this or that point, or sometimes fail to express himself with strict verbal accuracy: The recent convert — and we speak a good word for ourselves — cannot be expected to be always rigidly exact either in thought or language, and his mistakes, or blunders even, should be regarded with Christian forbearance. But sanctity, though it admit of degrees, is sanctity even in its lowest degree, and, if Mr. Northcote admits that it can in any degree be possessed by persons who adhere to the Anglican communion, he cannot claim it as the exclusive possession of the Roman Church. The difference between the two communions in respect of sanctity would, in such a case, be merely a difference of more or less, — a difference simply in degree, not in kind. Moreover, sanctity and salvation go together and are inseparable. Where there is no sanctity, there can be no salvation ; and where there is sanctity, there can be no condemnation. This must be true of sanctity in general, in any and every degree in which it is sanctity ;' for no one can pretend that none are saved but those who have attained to that heroic form of sanctity which we honor in the saints canonized by the Church. If, then, the author concedes sanctity in any degree to individuals living in and adhering to the Anglican communion, he must concede salvation to be attainable in that communion ; which is conNEW SERIES. 6 - VOL. I. NO. I. tra fidem, for it is de fide that there is no salvation out of the Church. It should also be borne in mind, that the Church has excommunicated and excommunicates every Protestant body, the Anglican as well as the Presbyterian or the Socinian, and we can hardly suppose that she allows us to concede sanctity to those who are under the ban of her excommunication, as heretics, cut off from communion with Christ; especially since sanctity is the end to be attained, the end for which she, with all her sacraments and ministries, was instituted and exists through all time. We have consulted the authorities within our reach, and we find none of them making the concession in question, but all unanimously contending that sanctity, properly so called, can be predicated only of the Church, whether reference be had to doctrines or to persons. The author seems to us, also, to be not quite exact in the following passages. “ All Catholic doctrine, as held by the Roman Church, has been the result of one continued law of growth, and has therefore the unity of nature and of life : its development has been like that of the Church itself, the least of all seeds, but when it is grown the greatest among herbs '; or, like the growth of grace in each individ. ual soul, ' first the blade, then the ear, and after that the full corn in the ear.'” - p. 53. “ The Gospel, it is true, is a divine message. Yet, as the language in which it is made is human, questions may naturally suggest themselves, almost without end, as to the real import of that language; as, for instance, from the brief and mysterious announcement, the Word became flesh,' three wide questions, as it has been well said [Newman, On Development, p. 50, Amer. edition), at once open upon us; what is meant by the Word,' what by flesh,' and what by became'; and inquiries of this kind have, as you know, from time to time arisen in the Church, more or less supported by Scriptural and traditional evidence. These have gradually gained ground and attracted notice, until the Church has felt herself obliged to pronounce judgment upon them, and thenceforward, according to her seal of sanction or anathema, such pinions have either been incorporated into the Catholic creed, or denounced as contrary to it; and those bodies which, spite of such anathema, have still clung to the proscribed opinions, have gradually become external and hostile to the Church.” This seems to us to teach or necessarily imply, — 1. that Christian doctrine grows by virtue of human effort ; 2. that a revelation cannot be made through the medium of human language, which shall reach the minds of its recipients in the full a 6 pp. 46, 47. and exact sense intended by its author ; 3. that heresies arise, as to their matter, from the incompleteness, quoad se or quoad nos, of the original revelation, and the honest and necessary endeavours of individuals to complete it ; and, 4. that opinions may be and are made by the Church articles of faith. There can, it seems to us, be no question that the passages quoted express or imply at least these four propositions, and we should suppose there can be just as little as to their objectionable character. The recent conversion of the author, his evident Catholic intentions, and general soundness of doctrine, would lead us to pass over these points, all uncatholic as they are, with a simple remark calling the attention of our readers to their evident heterodoxy, were they the solitary opinions of Mr. Northcote ; but they are the doctrines of a school, of a school formed, indeed, at first outside of the Church, but by the conversion of its distinguished founder, Mr. Newman, and his inore eminent disciples, now brought within her communion. Mr. Northcote was one of Mr. Newman's disciples, and the fact that he continues to be one, even within the bosom of the Church, leads us to fear the same may be the case with many others. He gives, in the extracts we have made, what we understand, and what we presume he understands, to be substantially Mr. Newman's doctrine of development. If that doctrine is entertained by the great body of those who have recently abandoned Anglicanism for the Church, the question becomes somewhat grave, and we may have, if we are not on our guard, before we are aware of it, a new school springing up in our midst, as dangerous as the Hermesian or that of De Lamennais. These individuals, from their well known talents, learning, and zeal, cannot fail to have a wide and commanding influence on our Catholic literature, and, if they adhere to Mr. Newman's doctrine, it will be diffused beyond the circle of those who now entertain it, and do no little harm to portions even of our Catholic population. The age has a strong tendency to theorizing and innovation, which Catholics themselves do not wholly escape. Let there be brought forward a theory which promises to them an opportunity of combining the love of speculation and novelty with reverence for their religion and zeal for the salvation of their neighbour, and the temptation will be too strong to be in all cases successfully resisted. In this view of the question, it becomes important to examine thoroughly Mr. Newman's Theory of Developments, and to lay open to all its real character. If it really authorize doctrines like those Mr. Northcote sets forth, no Catholic can for a moment, after discovering the fact, entertain it either as true or as harmless. It is with sincere reluctance we recur once more to Mr. Newman's Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine, reviewed last July in the former series of this Journal. We cannot do so wiihout exposing ourselves to much misconstruction and odium, especially since we are a layman and only a recent convert ourselves, a mere novice in Catholic faith and theology. But, occupying the post we do, and which we occupy by the request of those whose requests are commands for us, we are obliged to consult, not what may seem most appropriate to the neophyte or the layman, but what is most befitting the Catholic reviewer. And, after all, there may be less arrogance and dogmatism in speaking, under the supervision of the Church, what and only what she teaches us, and commands us to speak, if we speak at all, than those who are accustomed to speak only from their own heads may imagine. But personal considerations must not be suffered to enter into the account. The man, who, when the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith is attacked by an insidious theory, will remain silent lest his own motives should be misconstrued, or offer an apology for speaking out in clear and energetic tones against the advancing error, has little reason to glory in his Catholicity. Mr. Newman's book should have been exempt from Catholic criticism, and would have been, if it had been suffered to pass for what it is and professes to be, — the speculations of a man who at best is merely in transitu from error to truth. So regarded, — as it was on its first appearance, and still is by the great body of Catholics at home and abroad, whether of the clergy or the laity, — it deserves no censure, and may be read with no inconsiderable interest ; for what it contains that is unsound may be justly attributed to the author's former Protestantism, and what is sound may be taken as the concessions of a great and earnest mind to Catholic truth. So regarded, we read the book as it should be read, to find what it contains which we may as Catholics accept, not what it contains which we must reject. But we are compelled to regard it in a different light. Some few within contend the book must needs be orthodox, while those without insist that it is a work from which Catholic faith and theology are to be learned. The very eminence of the author gives weight to the conclusions of both. |
