« AnteriorContinuar »
mamber of that of Great Britain, nor the government of Great Britain a member of that of France, because they are two distinct, independent governments, and neither participates in the authority of the other. But the Church of England is a distinct, independent polity, participating in the authority of no other body, and holding communion with the authority of no body but itself. It, therefore, is not a member of the Catholic body. It, since it is an independent body, either is that corporation in its unity and totality, or no part of it. It is not it, and therefore is no part of it, but another and a totally distinct body. This is the inevitable conclusion to which we must come, if we adopt the doctrine that the Church is a single corporate body. Now, it is to this point we wish The Churchman to confine his attention ; to the argument we have here summed up, we wish him to reply. We tell him that the claim of his Church to absolute independency as an ecclesiastical polity negatives its claim to be a member of the ecclesiastical corporation; and as he himself concedes that it is not the Church in its unity and totality, we demand of him to show us how it can be other than a totally distinct and separate body from the Church of Christ, without denying the unity of the Catholic Church as a body corporate, and asserting the principle of Independency, which he must concede to be destructive of all rule and of all unity of the governing body. When he has answered this demand, we will go into the question of heresy, and discuss the question, whether his Church is sound in the faith or not, to his heart's content.
Our limits do not permit us to remark on all the statements in The Churchman's reply to us, that we could wish to notice; but there is one statement of so extraordinary a character, that we cannot let it pass without comment.
“As to appointments and investments," he says, " it should be remembered that the Church of England made no new law, and asserted no new liberty, at the time of the Reformation ; the parliamentary statutes on this subject being merely declarative of old laws which had been continuously asserted in almost every successive reign, from the time when the exercise of these
powers in England was first claimed by the Pope. Neither is it correct to say, that, in revoking these powers from the court of Rome, the Church of England yielded them to the temporal power as such ; for the representatives of the temporal power were then a portion of the Church, and, in suffering appointments and investments to revert to the crown, the Church of England did no more than acknowledge the element of lay cooperation in the management of Church temporalities."
This statement opens up a great subject, into the discussion of which we cannot now enter. We can only remark, that it is hardly true, to say that the Church of England made "no new law, and asserted no new liberty, at the time of the Reformation.” The old laws, to which allusion is made, were, in the first place, never assented to by the Church; and it may be a question, whether, the connexion of the Church with the state then existing considered, the protest of the Pope was not sufficient to destroy their force as laws; and, in the second place, they were never executed, but had been suffered from the first to remain on the statute-book a mere dead letter. They had never been laws in force in the realm. They were merely acts of the temporal government, and could, therefore, have been rightfully enforced, even at best, only so far as they concerned the temporalities of the Church. The temporal government never had in England, or in any other country, the right to make laws touching the spiritualities of the Church. But these laws did touch the spiritualities of the Church, and were therefore, so far at least, null and void from the beginning, de jure, as they proved to be de facto.
The Churchman does not state the case correctly, when he says, that, "in suffering appointments and investments to revert to the crown, the Church of England did no more than acknowledge the element of lay cooperation in the management of Church temporalities.” We surely need not tell him that investment carries with it spiritual jurisdiction. It was on this fact that the Pope grounded the right of the spiritual government to invest, and denied it to the temporal government.
If the temporal government grant investiture, it confers ing
spiritual jurisdiction, which gives it complete control in spirituals as well as in temporals. To say that the giving of this right to the crown was merely acknowledg
“the element of lay coöperation in the management of Church temporalities,” is an assertion hardly compatible with a correct knowledge and faithful statement of the real points involved in the controversy.
But we have no space left us for further remarks. We confess, that, the more closely we examine the claims of the Church of England, the more untenable we find them. We had almost worked ourselves into the desire to connect ourselves with that Church; and we are not certain but we should have so dove, had it not been for the Letters of Bishop Hopkins, which we found ourselves unable to refute on Anglican principles. We confess that Bishop Hopkins appears to us to be true to his Church, and to interpret her constitution and doctrines according to the genuine principles of its founders. His brethren, who differ from him, have more with which we sympathize than he has ; but they are, in our judgment, less faithful to Anglicanism. They would fain have us receive their Church as Catholic, and disingenuously in their publications call it Catholic ; but it is a Protestant Church, Protestant in spirit, in doctrine, in position, and in name, and we cannot reconcile it to our sense of honesty and frankness to seek to call it by any other name. It seems to us ridiculous to call it Catholic.
Even The Churchman itself calls its Church " The Reformed Catholic Church," which admits its fallibility ; for if it had not been fallible, it could never have needed reforming; and being fallible, who shall assure us that it may not need reforming again? This is enough for us. We have been forced by our own errors, mistakes, misapprehensions, self-contradictions, and frequent changes of opinion on all subjects, even the most vital, to admit that our own reason alone is not adequate to settle the great questions which concern our peace and salvation. We must have a guide, but do not mock us with a fallible guide. Talk not to us of a church, unless you have an infallible church to offer us. We have followed a fallible guide long enough. We believe Christ did found an infallible church, rendered infallible by his perpetual presence and supervision. To that church we willingly yield obedience. But your church is not it; for yours, by your confession, is fallible. We have, therefore, been obliged to look beyond Anglicanism, to a church which at least claims to be infallible, and which demands our obedience only on the ground that it is infallible.
Believing, as we do, that the Church of Christ is infallible, and authoritative because infallible, we have no sympathy with those who seek to restrain its authority as a body politic. It is a kingdom supreme and complete in itself, established and endowed by Christ, its Founder and invisible Governor, for the express purpose of governing mankind. All attempts to control it, to restrain its free action, or to bring it into subjection to any authority foreign to itself, we look upon as treason against the Eternal King, and as a betrayal of the true interests of man and society. All such attempts are wrong in principle, and necessarily disastrous in their results, of which the history of the Greek and Anglican Churches affords us striking proofs. Let civil governors and temporal princes learn this, and cease from their insane warfare against the Lord and his Anointed. It was the madness of the court of Constantinople that drew the Greek Church into schism, and ruined the Eastern empire, or at least deprived the Church of the power to convert its conquerors. It was the mad ambition of European princes, seeking to make the Church their tool, that fostered the spirit which effected the Protestant schism, which, however much its children may sing its praises, has already proved a serious calamity, and will yet be looked upon as the severest curse that could have befallen the nations involved in its guilt.
Nor have we any sympathy with the war of The Churchman against the papacy, and, whether we find few Romanists or many to go with us, we would not
VOL. I. NO. IV.
destroy the papacy, nor lessen in the least the power of the Pope, if we could. We dare be known to be one of those who believe that the papal authority is none too great ; and we fully believe, if the all but martyred Gregory the Seventh had succeeded in securing to the Church the independence he asserted, and for which he struggled through life, a far different and a far happier world had been realized for us and our children. We fear not the power, but the weakness, of the papacy; and we have no sympathy with those who would make the Pope a mere presiding officer, and only allow him the place of honor at the feast, or in the procession. We find Anglicanism more objectionable in its rejection of the papacy than in any thing else. This was its primal sin, its mother error, from which has come, as a natural progeny, its whole brood of errors. Had it not been for the papacy, the Church, humanly speaking, had failed long ere this. In the institution and preservation of the papacy, we see the especial providence of God. We shrink not from the abused name of Papist ; and we only regret that the ambition and wickedness of civil rulers have been able to prevent the papacy from doing all the good it has attempted. No man must think to frighten us by the cry of “Popery." Happy are we to acknowledge the authority of the Holy Father; more happy shall we be, if we can so live as to secure his blessing.
We have spoken freely to the editor of The Churchman, whom we respect as a man and a theologian. We await his reply.
Art. IV. — “A Tarif for Revenue, with Discrimina
tion in Favor of Protection."
While we are in the midst of an important presidential election, it may be thought to be an ill moment for the discussion of great questions of government or