תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

have obliged you to commence it. No one of course can deny that there may be cases when it is a duty to hazard such a result; the claims of truth must not be compromised for the sake of peace. Nor has any one cause to complain of those who, from a religious regard to purity of doctrine, denounce what he admires. But this I think may fairly be required of all persons, that they go not so far as to denounce in another what they do not at the same time shew to be inconsistent with the doctrines of our Church. Now this is the first thought which rises in my mind on the perusal of your pamphlet. I do not find in it any proof (I do not say of the erroneousness of the opinions and practices you condemn, but) even of their contrariety to our Church's doctrines". This seems to me an omission. You speak of an "increas

[ocr errors]

a Dr. Faussett, in the Preface to the Second Edition of his Pamphlet, says, that this Letter "should seem to have been written without any complete perusal of it, including of course the Notes and Appendix." p. iv. It seems then what it is not. He adds, "Hence I presume it is, that I am supposed to make assertions without proof." I certainly do not yet see that Dr. F. proves that the 66 he censures persons overvalue tradition,” are unscriplural,” or that they contravene our Articles and Prayer Book. This last point especially is what I ask proof of; instead of which Dr. F. asks why I do not appeal to Scripture, as if it were not enough for my purpose with a fellow-Churchman and an opponent, to appeal to the formularies of our Church. Were he not a Churchman, or were I teaching him instead of defending myself, I should appeal to Scripture; but as Churchmen we are bound to agreement on some points, with the permission of differences on others.

99.66

a dis

ing aberration from Protestant principles," position to overvalue the importance of Apostolical tradition;"" exaggerated and unscriptural statements," a tendency to depreciate the principles of Protestantism," and to " palliate" the "errors of Popery," " gradual and near approximation towards" the "Roman superstitions" concerning "the Lord's Supper." Now this is all assertion, not proof; and no one person, not even a Bishop, may at his mere word determine what doctrine shall be received and what not. He is bound to appeal to the established faith. He is bound conscientiously to try opinions by the established faith, and in doing so he appeals to an Unseen Power. He is bound to state in what respect they differ from it, if they differ; and in so doing he appeals to his brethren. The decision, indeed, is in his own hands; he acts on his own responsibility; but before he acts he makes a solemn appeal before God and man. What is true of the highest authority in the Church, is true of others. We all have our private views; many persons have the same private views; but if ten thousand have the same, that does not make them less private; they are private, till the Church's judgment makes them public. I am not entering into the question what is the Church, and what the difference between the whole Church and parts of the Church, or what are, what are not, subjects for Church decisions; I only say, looking at the English Church at this moment

and practically, that if there be two parties in it, the one denouncing, the other denounced, in a matter of doctrine, either the latter is promoting heresy, or the former is promoting schism. I do not see that there is any medium; and it does seem incumbent on the former to shew he is not infringing peace, by shewing that the latter is infringing truth.

There is a floating body of opinions in every Church, which varies with the age.

They are held

in one age, abandoned in the next. They are distinct from the Church's own doctrines; they may be held or abandoned, not without criticism indeed, because every man has a right to have his opinion about another's thoughts and deeds, and to tell him of it, but without denunciation. The English Church once considered persecution to be a duty; I am not here called on to give any opinion on the question; but certainly the affirmative side of it was not binding on every one of her members. The body of the English Church has for three centuries past called the Lord's Table an Altar, though the word is not in our formularies: I think a man wrong who says it is not an Altar, but I will not denounce him; I will not write in a hostile tone against any person or any work which does not, as I think, contradict the Articles or Prayer Book. And in like manner, there has ever been in our Church, and is

b Except indeed, as it would appear, the Coronation Service.

[ocr errors]

allowed by our formularies, a very great latitude as regards the light in which the Church of Rome is to be viewed. Why must this right of private judgment be infringed? Why must those who exercise that right be spoken of in terms only applicable to heretical works, and which might with just as much and just as little propriety be retorted upon the quarter they came from? Mr. Froude's volumes are called an offensive publication;" is this a term to be applied to writings which differ from us in essentials or non-essentials? they are spoken of not only as containing "startling and extravagant" passages, but " poison." What words do you reserve for heresy, for plain denials of the Creed, for statements counter to the Articles, for preachings and practices in disobedience to the Prayer Book? If at any time the danger from Romanism was imminent, it was at the time when the Articles were drawn up; what right has any one of his own private authority to know better than their compilers, and to act as if those Articles were more stringent in their protest against it than they are? If the Church of the nineteenth century outruns the sixteenth in her condemnation of its errors, let her mould her formularies accordingly. When she has so done, she has a claim on her members to submit; but till then, she has a claim on them to respect that liberty of thought which she has allowed, nor to denounce without stating the formal grounds of their denunciation.

I am speaking, on the one hand, of a public severe deliberate condemnation; and on the other of the omission of the grounds on which it is made. If grounds can be produced, of course I do not object; and in such case I leave it for those to decide, whether they be tenable, with whom the decision lies. Nor on the other hand can any fair objection be made to friendly expostulation, nay or to public remonstrance, even without grounds stated, if put forward as resting on the personal authority of the individual making it. Men of wisdom need not for ever be stating their grounds for what they say: but then they speak not ex cathedrá, but as if " giving their judgment, as those that have been faithful;" as" Paul the aged." The private judgment of one man is not the same as that of another; it may, if it so be, weigh indefinitely more than another's; it may outweigh that of a number, however able, learned, and well-intentioned. But then he gives it as private judgment; he does not come forward to denounce. He is in one sense the law itself, and others, taking his sentence from his mouth, use it after him. And, again, to take the case of men in general, there will ever be difference of opinions among them about the truth, fairness, propriety, or expedience of things said and done by each other. They have full right, as I have already said, or are even under a duty to speak their mind, though they speak it with pain; and the parties spoken to must bear it, though they bear it with

« הקודםהמשך »