that it means this, and to talk about its being necessary to the existence of organized bodies or branches of the Church only, is to talk sheer nonsense. Aside from the fact that the statement means nothing (as we have already shown) it is flatly denied by the very persons who make it. What "Catholic" will admit that the Holy Communion is not necessary to the existence of each human soul, or that it can be administered validly by any persons who are not either "the Successors of the Apostles" or "their delegates"? Yet to deny the validity of the Sacrament when administered under other conditions, Is to assert that the Episcopate is necessary to the spiritual life of each individual soul, however we may attempt to obscure the fact by harping upon the meaningless assertion that it is necessary to the existence of corporate branches of the Church only. While it is demonstrable that this is the real meaning of the whole theory, yet the most amazing feature of the entire problem under consideration is the fact that so many moderate Churchmen, of the most broad and liberal opinions, have allowed themselves to be misled into believing that this purely Tractarian or "Catholic" theory of the Episcopate is the orthodox, official teaching of the Church of England handed down from the days of the Reformation. Not only does a most superficial acquaintance with the works of the English Reformers clearly refute the idea, but "Catholics" themselves assert that the Articles and other official formularies of the Church are the products of an "uncatholic age," and that their (the "Catholics' ") avowed object is "to correct the mistakes of the Reformation." How Churchmen can possibly be misled into imagining that such a party, avowedly hostile to the fundamental principles of the men who framed the official formularies of this Church, can represent in their doctrinal views and practices the real, official teachings of this Church or can believe that their proposal to Change the Name of the Church, does not signify any fundamental change of doctrinal position or that that theory of the Episcopate upon which alone such a Change of Name can be justified is the true, official doctrine of the Episcopate for which the Church has ever stood, seems to us well nigh incomprehensible. To those of us who from our earliest infancy have been taught to speak with pride and veneration of the men who drafted our Prayer Book, Articles, and other formularies, who have ever held in sacred reverence the names of those who perished in the flames of Smithfield, believing them to be accounted worthy along with Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and many another confessor of those ancient days, of the sacred name of Martyr, ay, to those of us who listening to the dying words of that rugged hero, old Hugh Latimer, uttered even as the crackling fires swirled round him, "Stand fast, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall light a candle this day in England which by God's Grace shall never be extinguished": to those of us who listening to these words have ever felt their inspiration as a Prophecy Divine, a solemn call from the Most High God Himself to keep alive these principles forever: to those of us who have been reared in such a faith as this the following words of Dr. Littledale, one of the ablest exponents of the so-called "catholic" principles, are almost incomprehensible, and fill us only with pain and sadness. "Robespierre, Danton, Marat, St. Just, and Couthon, merit quite as much admiration and respect as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper. So far they stand on a higher moral level than the base traitors who were, and deservedly, executed, blunder and folly as that execution was, by Mary I. It is absolutely impossible for any just, educated, and religious man, who has read the history of the time in genuine sources, to hold two opinions about the Reformers. A Church which could produce in its highest lay and clerical ranks such a set of miscreants as the leading English and Scottish Reformers, must have been in a perfectly rotten state; as rotten as France was when the righteous judgment of the great Revolution fell upon it." (Lecture, London Times, May 23, 1868.) So too, Lord Halifax, President of the English Church Union, an Acknowledged leader of the "Catholic" party, is quoted as saying "The principles of the Reformation are things to be repented of with tears, and in ashes." No wonder that holding such principles as these our "Catholic" friends are anxious to "correct the mistakes" of these men, to purge the Church of those "Protestant" doctrines which we now know to have been the invention of "base traitors" and "miscreants." Yet, in spite of the fact that the English Reformers were "such a set of miscreants," in spite of the fact that their entire "Reformation," as some are pleased to call it, was all a miserable "mistake," these same "Catholic" Churchmen are (strange to say) immediately offended if any one, taking them at their word, insists that their own tenets are absolutely irreconcilable with the true official doctrines of this Church, which these "miscreants" incorporated in her formularies. They cannot understand how any one, particularly a Clergyman of the Church, can have the temerity to assert that a view of the Episcopate, which they hold and upon which they propose to change the Name and fundamental principles of the Church Herself, is absolutely irreconcilable with the teachings of these "miscreants" and the official doctrines which they themselves formulated for this Church. Miscreants or not, the Prayer Book, Ordinal, Articles, and all the official formularies of this Church, were the work of these men. If their doctrines thus formulated are not the official doctrines of this Church, she has none at all. Why "Catholics" should expect the doctrines of men whom they distinctly tell us were "miscreants" and "traitors" to coincide with their views, we cannot understand. We can understand, indeed, why they should take issue with us as regards our view of the Episcopate and our conception of the Catholic Church. Why they should object to our statement that these "miscreants," whose "mistakes" they are now trying to correct, emphatically denied their "catholic" theory of the Episcopate, when one of their best authorities (Keble) has himself told us that the English Reformers "never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the Succession with the validity of the Holy Sacraments" we cannot understand. Why they should find fault with our statement that a view of the Church Catholic founded upon a theory of the Episcopate which these "miscreants" rejected, is foreign to the teachings of said "miscreants," and the official doctrines of that Church which they (said "miscreants") reformed we do not see. Lastly, why they should further object to our statement that the proposal to change the name of the Church to one that will uphold the distinctive "Catholic" conception of the Episcopate and the Church, is to overthrow the Protestant principles of these "traitors," and undermine all the official doctrines of that Church, which these said "traitors" themselves drew up and formulated, these are matters which, we freely confess, are absolutely incomprehensible to us. Why should "Catholics" expect that their view should represent the official doctrines of this Church, when the said official doctrines were framed by a set of "miscreants," and when the whole object of their own work, as they distinctly tell us, is to "correct the mistakes" which these men made? We confess that the mystery is well-nigh inscrutable. And yet-think of it!-there are many people, among them moderate churchmen, who regard the opinions which we have here expressed concerning the Episcopate and the Church, as nothing less than heresy. |