ePub 版

institution. It defines the whole subject of ecclesiastical authority, and is determinative of the function of revelation itself. If therefore the dogma is true, the Ritualists are no true Catholics, but only schismatics, dissenters, rebels, and heretics. If, on the other hand, the dogma is false, if the Pope is not God's infallible vicar, then he is a pretender, scarcely second either to Mohammed or to any other in the extent of his false claims; and to acknowledge the communion which is built on these claims as a part of the true Church, while Protestants are cast wholly out of the pale, is eminently

diculous. Moreover, the Ritualistic maxim respecting the infallibility of the Church (as distinguished from the Pope) is on the same supposition discredited. If so vast a section of the Church as is the Romish, comprising a majority of all who boast the name of Catholic, can adopt fundamental error, it would seem that the Church is not above the liability of dogmatic mistakes. To be sure, there is a chance to say that the Church as a whole, and not any part, however large, is infallible. But such a view can satisfy only an artificial mind, since the addition of a minority of erring men to a majority has no tendency to create infallibility. And besides, it is to be observed that a dogma like that of papal infallibility raises a barrier against church unity which promises to be everlasting. The infallibility of the Church, therefore, besides having been in abeyance wellnigh a thousand years, is likely to remain practically abortive for long ages to come, if it is conditioned on church unity. Can it be the order of Divine Providence that men must rest upon this sunken faculty, this inoperative prerogative ? The supposition is too near the border of absurdity to need serious discussion. The manifest order of Providence is that every man, according to his opportunity, should energetically apply his reason, his common sense, and his power of spiritual perception to the God-given data in revelation and history.

Among those whom the Tractarian wave carried beyond the borders of the Anglican Establishment, Newman has commanded most interest and regard. Manning has indeed made a notable record. His energy, executive gift, and audacity were very serviceable in giving to Ultramontanism that brazen front which enabled it to persist, in the face of scathing criticism, to the coveted declaration of papal absolutism and infallibility. Still, he has won no exceptional distinction outside the inferior rôle of a party manager. Newman, on the other hand, has made a reputation for genius, and earned hearty respect as a man of eminent religious sensibility and devotion. The fact that he has secured so largely the appreciation of Protestants is a unique testimonial in his favor. The Romish Church may fitly be grateful to the Oxford movement for bearing to her bosom so great a prize. Nevertheless, if we look narrowly at Newman's contribution to that Church, we shall find that it is subject to some discount. The prestige which his talents have given to the Roman Catholic cause in England has, of course, been highly valued by all intelligent Romanists. It must be allowed also that in various connections he has expressed himself as a Romanist of the purest water on the great point of subjecting private judgment to church authority. Nothing, for example, could be more perfectly orthodox than this commendation of mental passivity within the pale of holy Church: “ We cannot without absurdity call ourselves at once believers and inquirers also. Thus it is sometimes spoken of as a hardship that a Catholic is not allowed to inquire into the truth of his creed: of course he cannot if he would retain the name of believer. He cannot be both inside and outside the Church at once. It is merely common sense to tell him, that if he is seeking, he has not found.” 1 Similar prescriptions for gluing down the eyelids in the presence of the teachings of the Church might be cited. Rome could not ask for better precepts in this line than Newman has given. But, on the other hand, he has more than once expressed himself in a way that must have seemed questionable to his brethren. The general theory expounded in his “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” is in painful contrast with the language of ecumenical councils and papal documents ; for while the former describes some of the cardinal doctrines of Romanism as gradually issuing out of mist and obscurity, the stereotyped representation of the latter is that these things


[ocr errors]

1 Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, p. 181. Of this work John Tulloch remarks: “I have carefully examined it, and found it at the root

- as I think all who probe it critically must find it — to be little more than a process of make-belief. Only assent strongly enough to anything, and it will embed itself in your mental constitution as a verity of the first order. But the further question always arises, What is the value of a principle of certitude which is at bottom planted neither in reason nor in evidence, but in the mere force of the grip which you yourself take of the thing believed ? Faith is good ; but a faith that is neither enlightened nor determined by facts in the shape of evidence, but simply by the blind assent with which the mind sets itself upon its object, may be as much a basis of superstition as of religion." (Movements of Religious Thought in Britain in the Nineteenth Century, p. 103.)

have been held and taught in the Church from the beginning. How it must grieve the sight of the average apologist to observe such a sentence as this ! “ Christianity developed in the form, first, of a Catholic, then of a Papal Church.” We suspect also that the average champion of the Romish faith would prefer to omit the following passage, as giving but a doubtful advantage to his side: “ The Jews could sin in a way no other contemporary race could sin, for theirs was a sin against light; and Catholics can sin with a depth and intensity with which Protestants cannot sin. There will be more blasphemy, more hatred of God, more diabolical rebellion, more of awful sacrilege, more of vile hypocrisy, in a Catholic country than anywhere else, because there is in it more of sin against light."1 As has been intimated elsewhere, some portions of Newman's Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in answer to Gladstone read almost like a satire on the doctrine of papal infallibility, though no one assumes that they were written with such an intent. That the promulgation of the doctrine was an affliction to him, we know from this strong declaration in a letter to Bishop Ullathorne, while the Vatican Council was in session : “As to myself personally, please God, I do not expect any trial at all; but I cannot help suffering with the many souls who are suffering, and I look with anxiety at the prospect of having to defend decisions which may not be difficult to my own private judgment, but may be most difficult to maintain logically in the face of historical facts. What have we done to be treated as the faithful never were treated before? When has a definition de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stern painful necessity? Why should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed to make the heart of the just sad whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful'? Why cannot we be let alone, when we have pursued peace and thought no evil ?”

1 Apologia, Appendix, p. 60.

The primary standpoint of the Ritualists would lead us to expect that the more recent tendencies in the field of Biblical criticism would obtain among them scant appreciation, as being logically opposed to a predominant stress on external authority. In fact, however, some of the prominent representatives of the party in the last few years have expressed themselves as rather friendly than otherwise to the work of criticism, and to some of its main results. Such statements as the following from Charles Gore would not seem out of place from the pen of the average representative of the Broad Church:

“ The Church has in Holy Scripture the highest expression of the mind of Christ. The familiarity of all its members with this flawless and catholic image is to ward off in each generation that tendency to deteriorate and to become materialized which belongs to all “traditions. The individual illumination is thus to react as a purifying force upon the common mind of the Christian society. The individual Christian is to pay the debt of his education, by himself testing all things, and holding fast that which is good.' . . . In the past, Christian apologists have made a great mistake in allowing opponents to advance, as objections against the historical character of the Gospel narrative, what are really objections not against its historical character, — not such as

, could tell against the substantially historical character

« 上一頁繼續 »