Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the English Priesthood were by no means indifferent to the importance of promoting Unity and Reunion with these. Others are pleased to talk about the errors of the Church of Rome and the corruptions of Constantinople, but when he heard these remarks made by clever people he often wondered whether they understood much about the question, whether they really knew how far and in what respect the various great branches of the Catholic Church do differ from each other. Nothing can be more certain than that as there is but one Church upon earth, and various members of that Church, one member cannot be wounded without others suffering with him; and it is our plain, bounden duty, as members of the Church established in this country, to do all that lies in our power, by God's permission, to soften down asperities, and to heal the wounds which from time to time may have been inflicted. He deprecated the notion, imputed to them by some clever writers, that they expected by this meeting to achieve something wonderful, some new and striking result. They did not expect anything of the kind; but they did hope and trust that the more the various branches were brought into intercommunication with each other, and brought to meet each other on a kindly and friendly footing, the more probability there was of that which they all so earnestly desired, the Reunion of Christendom.

The first resolution, moved by Lord KILCOURSIE, was as follows: -"That in view of the religious condition of mankind, of whom over two-thirds are still heathen, and of the grave scandals and difficulties caused by the unhappy divisions among Christians, this meeting desires to record its conviction of the paramount importance of the Reunion of East and West round the Primacy anciently recognised by both alike, as well for securing the integrity as for promoting the dissemination of the

Christian Faith."

Lord KILCOURSIE said: I feel that I am to move a resolution which is perhaps more strongly worded than any resolution which it has been my fot to propose. Yet the more often I read it, the more certain I am that nothing short of what is contained in this resolution will be in any way suitable to heal the divisions, which we all hope will be healed. And I will ask you to carry it unanimously for two reasons; firstly, because I venture to look upon it as a Protestant resolution; and secondly, because I hold it to be a Catholic resolution also. I look upon it as a Protestant resolution; and I think that at this time a protest is necessary against two classes of persons who call themselves Christians. On the one hand is a section which ignores history and places it on one side, and talks of an infallible supremacy. But the word here is Primacy, and there must be many persons here present who have read history, and who are thoroughly aware that the Christians of the early age, although never recognising an infallible supremacy, in their convictions invariably leaned to a primacy. For union is strength, and without union there certainly is no strength. Now, the object of this meeting is not to compromise any one individual in it, be he Roman Catholic or member of the Established Church, or any other Christian body. It is simply to call forth his sympathies in the great Reunion movement. (Cheers.) If Reunion is to be looked for someone must call it forth. Has the Archbishop of Canterbury sufficient influence to call together an assembly of Christians from all the world? Certainly he has not. Has the Holy Patriarch of Constantinople power to do this? Certainly not. Has the Pope of Rome power to effect this? At present he certainly has not. Still he is in the foremost position, the one whose primacy, if you read history, you are bound to acknowledge; he is the man from whom you must naturally expect the call for the Reunion of Christendom. And in asking you to accept this resolution I shall ask you to go no further than your conscience will permit you to go; no further than it will carry you after reading that text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; no further than your conscience will take you when you bring also into contemplation all those unhappy events which took place at the Reformation. The seconding of this resolution I leave in the hands of one who will bring forth arguments in favour of it far deeper than any words that can fall from one who has by accident been placed in a position from which he would willingly have retired.

[ocr errors]

Mr. AMBROSE P. DE LISLE seconded the resolution in the following words: In rising to second this resolution I feel that I need your indulgence, for in truth I am wholly unaccustomed to public speaking and to the routine of public meetings. But on the other hand, I am not wanting, and never shall be wanting, in hearty goodwill to lend my aid, feeble as it may be, to support the glorious effort to heal the divisions of Christendom. And here I cannot help expressing the joy that I feel in witnessing the progress of this great movement toward Reunion on sound Catholic principles. There is at the present day a general feeling amongst all who still believe in the Christian religion, that union is necessary, and that division enfeebles its action upon mankind. And so we have the Evangelical Union, which disregards all Catholic and hierarchical principles, and anathematising what it terms the errors of Popery on the one hand, and the corruptions of the Greek Church on the other, pretends to call believing men to a union, without either dogmatic or organic unity, upon certain vague principles of pietism or mere sentiment. It is not such a union as this that we are met here to-night to advocate or promote. The union we hope for is a union of rational and believing men in one and the same dogmas, around a common centre of faith and practice. Now, what is the basis of the union to which we aspire? Is it not that Faith which our Lord Jesus Christ,

nearly two thousand years ago, first preached to mankind; which He commissioned His Apostles to teach among all nations, and in so teaching which He promised to abide with them for ever? The Faith, then, which we propose as the basis of our union, is the Primitive Orthodox Faith of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, handed down without change, without either diminution or addition, in all the successive ages of Christian history, even to our own times, vouched for by all the Apostolic Churches, and in all countries and among all nations known by the name of Catholic, and either loved or hated as such. I remember, when I was scarcely fourteen years of age, an aged Clergy man of the Church of England, a man of learning and piety, was the first who brought before me the question of a Corporate Reunion between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. He pointed out to me in "Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History" a correspondence on this very subject between Wake, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Cardinal de Noailles, the Archbishop of Paris, and some learned doctors of the Sorbonne. This correspondence took place as far back as the reign of our Queen Anne. I read this correspondence, and I imbibed a hearty desire to work for the great object it advocated. To this desire, to this idea, I have been constant and true for more than forty-five years. I believe that a corporate organic Reunion of Christendom upon sound Primitive and Catholic principles is the only hope for the solid and lasting triumph of the Church. But it was not enough to pray for this great object; it was necessary to act, and I always felt that something was wanting to give full plied; the first resolution, seems to me exactly to suggest the one thing energy to our efforts. I am thankful to say that this want is now supwhich can alone enable us to bring our work to a practical and triumphant conclusion. It calls upon us to rally round the Primacy which was anciently recognised by all Christians; that is, around the Primacy of the Apostolic See of St. Peter, the Holy Roman Church. How great is my joy that this resolution has not been proposed by a member of my own Communion, but by a member of the Church of England! and is it not a hopeful sign of future Reunion that our Anglican brethren, in expressing this idea, and in laying down this great principle of Hierarchical Unity, should call upon a man so devoted as I have been for more than 40 years to the cause of the Holy Apostolic See, to second such a resolution? Truly it is a great recompense and a high privilege to have lived to see sound principles arrive at this stage! But we may now fairly hope to see a still further triumph. It is not necessary to go into those ecclesiastical and theological arguments, which are usually advanced on behalf of the Primacy of the Roman See. It is enough for our purpose to dwell on mere natural arguments. If the Church of Christ be a visible body, it would seem obvious that it must have a visible head; Christ, indeed, is the only true Head of the Church in the strict sense of the term; but He must surely have some visible representative in the government of the visible Church. If He said to His Apostles, "he that heareth you heareth Me." He laid down a principle of vicarious Representation of Himself, which must apply to the whole career of His Church from beginning to end; for the same necessities must exist in all ages, and require a similar provision. As the Church extended her borders the necessity of this Primacy would naturally become more and more apparent, as, in fact, it did; and it would obtain, as Church history tells us it did, increased marks of recognition. No doubt in this, as in every other good thing, abuses have crept in, and the sacred cause of Truth has been disfigured by the impatience and eagerness of men in working out a grand theory. I have often thought that this may in some degree account for, though it can never justify the fraudulent publication of the false Decretals. Men in the exuberance of loyalty are apt to exaggerate the prerogatives of the Sovereign, but our own history can bear witness that such extreme politicians are not the truest friends of the Monarchy or the Throne. So has it been with the Primacy of St. Peter, and the throne of the Papacy; indiscreet supporters have done more to ruin its authority than its bitterest enemies. The Christian world is at this moment agitated with a great controversy, whether the Infallibility which all Catholics admit to reside in the whole body of the Catholic Church, is a personal attribute of the reigning Pope, apart from the rest of the Episcopate and independent of them. It would be unbecoming in me as a simple layman to dogmatize upon a question, which is at present under the consideration of the great body of the Bishops assembled in Rome. It will soon be known what is the judgment of this sacred tribunal, and we are quite sure that this judgment, if pronounced by a really Ecumenical Council, will be in conformity with the facts of ecclesiastical history and the unchanging tradition of the Catholic Church. No one, who believes in Christianity and who studies the New Testament, can fail to perceive that it was a religion to be embraced by all nations, in contrast to that of the Old Testament which was confined to one single people, the Jews. But if the infallible authority of teaching the Faith was conferred upon the whole body of the Pastors collectively, it is equally evident that one of this body was chosen to confirm his brethren, and thus to give a united force to their common action throughout the world. Hence the Apostolic See of Rome is termed the centre of Catholic Unity. Those who are united to it are by that very fact united to each other. Where this bond of union is wanting there cannot be any united action upon the world at large. For many ages the great Churches of the East and of that great Empire of Russia have been separated from the Roman See. It is true that they have preserved the

Unity of Faith, and have combined in witnessing to all the principal dogmas of the Catholic religion; but, without offence, I may be permitted to affirm that they have failed to exercise any great influence upon mankind, and this for want of a common centre of operation and of spiritual government. Hence the Churches of the East have appeared to be merged in a sort of national isolation, detached from one another and incapable of any combined or simultaneous effort for the service of mankind. The Latin Churches, on the other hand, by retaining their adherence to the Papacy, ever preserving the name of Catholic, have maintained in all ages one combined operation upon the human race. It is to this centre that our first resolution invites both our Anglican and our Greek brethren to return, and in seconding this resolution I desire to give it my hearty support.

A gentleman in the body of the room, Mr. THOMAS COLLIS, rose and said, that whilst he should be sorry to raise any question of disunion, he must yet take exception to some of the remarks that had been made. He thought that the whole point of the Primacy of the Roman See had been assumed, not proved, on the part of their Roman brethren. Without entering into controversy he could not help feeling that the whole question had been begged; if, for instance, St. Paul had known even of the Primacy of St. Peter, he would certainly have said something about t when he wrote his epistle to the Church of Rome.

The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution, which was carried with only two or three dissentients.

Churches also."

The second resolution was moved by the Rev. C. F. LOWDER :— "That the only adequate remedy for the social and religious dangers of England, and the surest guarantee for the future of English Christianity, lies in her restoration to Visible Unity, primarily with the Churches of the Western Patriarchate, and then with the Eastern The Rev. gentleman said: I rise to propose this with feelings of the greatest satisfaction, not because I altogether approve of the whole wording of it, but because I feel that I can in the main thoroughly accept it. Had I been consuited on the subject I might have made one or two alterations; but it is not worth while on such an occasion as this, with such a grand object before us, to quibble about words. And it seems to me that there are two principles involved in this resolution : (1) that Reunion is the only adequate remedy for the social and religious dangers of England; (2) one about which misunderstandings might arise, that the way to the restoration of Unity is to begin with the Churches of the Western Patriarchate. Let us think, firstly, what these social dangers are. The principal ones may be summed up in one word, licentiousness, as opposed to true liberty. Englishmen love true liberty, but when liberty becomes licence, when it is corrupted into licentious ness, then is it most dangerous. After dwelling for awhile upon the dangers, social and political, which were manifest at the present day, the speaker passed to the religious dangers. These, he said, are certainly distinct and manifold. Why is it that we are estranged from one another, that there are so many sects and divisions? Why is it that we cannot all worship in one Church, at one Altar, the one Lord whom we all acknowledge? Why is it that our Christian brethren, the Nonconformists, are estranged from us? Why is it that infidelity is so rampant at the present time? Whence is it that the religion which prevailed in past ages has become effete as a great power in this country? Protestantism at this time has no real religious influence in this country. (Cheers.) We see and know this, for we have continually coming to us for instruction the children of those who were most prominent as defenders of Protestant ideas in the past. Or else we see them driven into infidelity, carelessness, latitudinarianism, or others of the various forms of irreligion which exist amongst us. Is not this a source of danger? After enlarging eloquently upon this theme, he spoke of our duty towards the Colonies. We have a vast empire in India, and we are responsible for Christianising that country. We go to India; others go to India; all Missionary Societies are represented there. It is not only that the ancient Churches of the East, and of Rome and England are represented there, but Baptists, Wesleyans, and Nonconformists, of all kinds and all teachings. What do the heathen say? "When you Christians have agreed together what is the faith you wish us to adopt, then we will listen to you." Our Missionary difficulties arise from this, that when we send out Christianity we send out with it all our divisions also. See how our divisions have intensified in America, until they have become a scandal to ourselves. There we have founded a people who are divided by every idea, every form of religion, which we can conceive as sheltering itself under the name of Christianity. We must feel that until God give us Reunion in this country there is no adequate remedy for these evils. (Cheers.) As to the second point, I confess that I speak less decidedly. There is no question that we must have Reunion; we have been praying for it earnestly for thirteen years. But when it is made a matter of prayer we have put it out of our own control. We have given it to God. We cannot tell how it may please Almighty power to bring about that Reunion, whether it shall be by our reapproach to Eastern Churches or through the Western Patriarchate. Perhaps it may begin with the Eastern, so that united we may come with more powerful front to the Western Patriarchate. That is quite my own idea, although no one feels more strongly than I do that our first duty is to the Western Patriarchate; we belong to it, we have to thank it for the Christianity

of this country. When we say 66 primarily" with the Western Churches, I would wish you all to remember that we do not pretend to define the ways of Almighty God. (Marks of assent.) We pray for Reunion as He may please to give it us. We leave all in His hands; our desire is for Union, however it may be rightly and fitly brought about. Therefore, I speak to this resolution with the greatest confidence, and with feelings of the greatest pleasure, because I am sure that those who do not fear what may be said of them, who come forward in singleness of heart, praying the same prayer that our Blessed Lord prayed, must be in the right. Let us thank the world if it speak against us; and thank the world if it tries to crush this effort; because in so doing we have an additional proof that this movement is of God.

Mr. PEACOCK seconded the resolution, and said that he had been asked as a Roman Catholic layman to do this. He could not refuse, although the request was unexpected, since the object was one very dear to him. The world outside asks us, Why cannot we teach the truth, and spread the Gospel so far as we know it? The answer is clear; being taught with no authority, it comes with no power to influence the sinner. Any scientific truth which I understand I may convey to the mind of another person, but if I want to teach any matter of theology, any spiritual truth, it is perfectly clear that he would not believe me when his own wicked desires told him to the contrary. The only means of teaching spiritual truth is teaching it as a member of a vast corporation. The Church Catholic is that corporation. A few centuries ago it was broken and disunited, through circumstances mainly political. I maintain that the principal causes which led to this disruption were political acts of the Pope; they were like the enforcement of a police or a highway rate, and had nothing to do with the Christian faith. Anglicans who pray for unity ought to remember that it is not essential that the unity should take place first of all with Rome. If political and other reasons should make their union with the great Eastern Church more easy, it seems to me that the ends of unity would united. This would make Reunion with the See of Rome probable, if be in some degree accomplished if England and Constantinople were not certain. As to objections, the real reason of the opposition of the outside world is this. The heathen or semi-heathen world without feels that the Church is a spiritual body which opposes it in many ways; and by having it broken into fragments, into great and little sects, the world can better cope with the Church, just as in former days, when Italy was broken up into little republics, it lay at the mercy of France to overrun it at pleasure. But united Italy cannot be so invaded and oppressed. In like manner it seems to me that the graces of God are not poured out so fully on the Christian world since Christendom has been divided, as they have been, and would be again if it were reunited. If unity can be accomplished it ought to be accomplished at any cost whatever. (Cheers.) For my own part, I should feel, as a layman, that if it could be purchased on the terms of mere subscription to the Apostles' Creed, and the necessary Sacramental deductions from that Creed, then we ought to obtain it. These sentiments of mine are the views of a large minority, if not an actual majority, of the Church of which I am a member.

The Rev. GEORGE BODY: I hope that I may claim your kind indulgence when I have to speak rather against the general tenor and tone of this meeting, since no one who knows me will accuse me of being wanting in devotion to the great cause of Catholicism. I have been now for many years a member of the A. P. U. C., have prayed daily its prayer, and constantly offered the Holy Sacrifice for the attainment of its great object. But I am not quite certain, firstly, that the resolutions that we are passing to-night will promote the Reunion of Christendom, and next, I cannot be unmindful of those who are inclined to watch our movements with suspicion, and therefore need to be dealt with tenderly and lovingly. It seems to me that our friends have become apologists for the motions they have submitted. If I could be certain that those who are now reporting our resolutions would also send throughout England the explanation with which those motions have been put forward, I should have no hesitation in being silent upon this subject. I fear that men will put an interpretation upon them, which is not only repudiated by us of the Anglo-Catholic Church, but has been repudiated by our Roman brethren, especially at this great crisis in the history of Christendom, when it seems that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility must to a certainty be erected into a dogma. (No, no.) I accept these signs of dissent with thankfulness, but the world is saying "Yes!" and will only accept as an authoritative contradiction the refusal of the Council to pass such a resolution. I am not for a single moment a believer in the infallibility of the Anglican Church, or that she is a fair reproduction of primitive Christianity. (Cheers.) I do not believe anything of the kind. I believe that the doctrine of sacrifice in the Blessed Sacrament is most timidly expressed. The great doctrine of the Communion of Saints is wanting in full expression in the Formularies of the Church. I am not at all anxious to stand up as an apologist for the present position of the Church of England in doctrine or in actual contact with the masses. It is in the revival of primitive Catholicism that the real interests of the Church of God are alone to be wrought out. But pardon me if I say that I should have been thankful if the word "primarily " had been removed from this resolution. I am told that this is the theoretical path whereby to return; it may be so

theoretically, but to me it seems unpractical. I shall be very thankful when there is the slightest prospect of any overtures being adopted by the Court of Rome. On the other hand, it seems to me there is a movement in another direction, that reunion with the Eastern Church is no longer merely looming in the distance. The mission of the Archbishop of Syra and Tenos to this country was a plain, manifest answer to the prayers of God's people in the English Church. (Cheers.) At the present time, when God is practically leading us along a certain path, it is neither wise nor politic for us to pass theoretical resolutions. I admit all that has been said as to the theory. We can never forget the debt of obligation which we owe to the See of Rome for the Mission of St. Augustine. (Cheers.) Nor do I think that we should hesitate for a single moment to make any sacrifice or compromise, short of the sacrifice of that distinctive witness which we have to give before Christendom. At the present time it seems that God has wonderfully blessed this Reunion movement. We have had no policy; we have passed no resolutions. In our closet and at the altar we have uttered round the globe the great prayer of the Incarnate, that He would give unity to His Church. I fear lest by making any policy of our own we may retard that for which we labour and for which we pray. I do not wish to propose any amendment, for what I have said will effect my object; only it would be impossible for me to vote for the resolution as it stands at present. At the same time I desire to profess for myself, and for those who think with me, that we have as great a yearning as others have for the restoration of the Unity of Christendom. I believe, if we leave it where it has been left up to the present time, in the hands of Him who alone can overcome difficulties now insurmountable to mere human powers, and pray and plead in union with the great Sacrifice, that the object of our prayers and our sacrifices shall be attained, in God's own time and way, and the day will come (may He in His mercy hasten it!) when Ephraim shall no more envy Judah, and Judah shall no longer vex Ephraim.

The Rev. GEORGE NUGEE moved the third resolution:

"That the advance of the Reunion movement during the last twelve years, and the critical circumstances of the present time, call at once for deep thankfulness and for increased energy in the prosecution of this holy work."

[ocr errors]

This resolution, he said, which has been entrusted to me, will compel me to deal with the hopes as well as the difficulties of Reurion. To dwell simply upon the hopeful views of it, and to ignore the difficulties, is like inviting our friends to an aërial trip, with a beautiful sky overhead, and not to warn them that the wind may possibly change and carry them right against the Peak of Teneriffe. And first for the hopeful view. The Reunion movement has now lived twelve years-years they have been of prayer-it has been simply the lifting up of the hands of the mystical body of Christ, the cry of the souls from beneath the altar, "How long, O Lord, holy and true!" It is this which marks the essential character of the movement as a whole. Thus, the author of the "Etudes Religieuses," quoted by Dr. Pusey in his letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, says that Catholics must not rest content with mere barren wishes. A great door is open to us; we must not close it by our own severity or by any wrong feeling. It is the duty of every one to fall upon his knees in prayer, and implore the Almighty Father to finish the work which He has commenced." Yet, whilst prayer is the essence of the movement, here have been various events, upon which I am now to speak, dealing with them simply as facts. In 1865 the Bishop of Capetown made pointed reference in his Charge to the growing feeling in favour of Union. Even amongst various sections of Presbyterians and Baptists he could trace its prevalence. The following year, 1866, Prince Orloff, the Russian Ambassador, was present at a meeting in London on subject of Reunion, on which he afterwards addressed a letter to the Times. He stated that amongst those present there was no sign of division, except that some were anxious for immediate intercommunion, to be followed by dogmatic agreement, and another party would prefer a reverse order. Then followed the testimony of Bishop Ullathorne, of Birmingham, who declared that "it is desirable that a bridge should be lowered between those two great bodies that represent religion in England." Turning to another point, we remember the Patriarch's letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. How unexpected and wonderful it was! The Patriarch of Constantinople gave the same titles to our Archbishop that he does to those of his own communion, and showed his knowledge of the exact position of our Prelate by terming him an Exarch. Yet a few years ago it was scarcely known there whether the Church of England had any spiritual organisation or not. Dr. Pusey's "Eirenicon," and Mr. G. F. Cobb's "Kiss of Peace," are too remarkable to be passed over in this enumeration. The latter book is, to my mind, a most valuable instrument when we come to deal with Continental Churches. A short time ago I was in conversation with the Archbishop of Rouen on the position of the English Church. All centred upon the Blessed Sacrament. It was a question of the cardinal, Catholic doctrine of the real presence. The value of that book to me was enormous. I was able to show him that the metousiosis of the Greek Church, and the "verily and indeed taken and received" of the English, properly explained, were identical with the transubstantiation of the Roman Church. It only required a fair explanation of that word to set us at one. And what were the feelings of the Archbishop towards me? He put me in the post of honour in his

Church; at dinner, with a company of the French Clergy, I sat by his side. In conversation, he said, "Now, sir, what is it that you require of us?" I answered, "The Saxon is a strange creature, and requires a great deal. One thing especially-a Sacramental idea--he requires the Chalice." He turned round to his Clergy and said, "We could grant that to-morrow, could we not?" And all who were present answered "Yes." So much for this single instance out of many granted in answer to the continuous stream of intercession going up to Almighty God. Let us look next at the corporate action of the Church. First came the Committee of Convocation acting in union with the Convention of the American Church. After this, the Pan-Anglican or Lambeth Synod. It was said at the time that it did nothing, and squibs were made upon its ineffectiveness. Yet every line in the preamble of their report was of the greatest moment. For what did it state? First, it thanked God that He had permitted them to come together as an Episcopal body from all parts of the world; and then it poured forth the deepest sorrow at the divisions of Christendom, and recorded their solemn conviction that our only hope for the Reunion of Christendom lay in maintaining inviolate the Primitive Faith of the Church, and beseeching the Almighty with incessant prayer that He would grant us Reunion in His own good time. And now as to the critical circumstances and difficulties which lie believe that this may be a condition of ultimate Reunion. Or before us. What are these? You will say, Disestablishment. I perhaps you will bring forward the Council at Rome. I believe that if unhappily this dogma is affirmed, it must lead to the disintegration of the Roman system. (No, no.) It must do so. And this very disintegration may be another presage of union. Yet we might justly welcome this dissolution of our ecclesiastical organisation, if out of the chaotic mass there should arise a united Church, the true Bride of Christ, pure and without spot.

[ocr errors]

The Rev. H. N. OXENHAM, whose rising was the signal for prolonged applause, said: The resolution which has fallen into my unworthy hands is one which, like all that have been brought before you this evening, expresses my most entire and most cordial feelings. It may seem, perhaps, to contain within itself a contradiction; but I shall hope to show you that there is no contradiction, and that it is true that there is in the circumstances of recent years the greatest cause for deep thankfulness and for increased energy in the prosecution of this holy work." Perhaps I may say in commencing, that it is some proof of the past success and augury of advance of this movement that we should see before us such an assembly as this, who whatever may be their minor differences in points of detail, are still at one in the great principle that it is essential for the future of Christianity, and for the triumph of Catholic Truth on earth, that the separated branches of professing Christians should be united in one fold and under one Shepherd. It is remarkable also that every one of the three resolutions should have been proposed by a member of the Anglican, and seconded by a member of the Roman Catholic Church. And when I see around me so many of the most eminent Laity and Clergy of the Anglican Church, and when I see around me also members of my own communion, and listen to the words of one who for twenty-five years has stood in the van of this great and noble movement, and has never shrunk from coming forward in times of difficulty to speak words of wisdom and peace; or when I listen to the unstudied words of eloquence of another Roman friend of mine, and when I find that these all are in substance entirely agreed, I say that this is indeed an augury of that centripetal movement going on amongst the members of the divided branches of the Church of Christ, a movement which is not confined to England, but is beating through the pulses of Christian Europe. I will take that part of the resolution first which speaks of causes for thankfulness, and next our reasons for renewed energy in the prosecution of this work. Turn to England. Here I need add very little to what has been said already as to the great advance in the Church of England. One thing I may be allowed to say, as one who has looked at it from the outside, and which strikes me as most remarkable; it is how the present High Church or Ritualist movement (call it what you will), differs from the earlier High Church Tractarian movement of thirty years ago. There is this difference, that whilst that was mainly an appeal to the higher, more educated, and literary classes, a work of the cloister, of the college, of the study, of the press, now the movement has gone forth as it did not do in its earlier days, and as every religious movement that has really a claim to conquer the allegiance of mankind must go forth, to grapple with the masses, to claim to conquer for itself what all living truth must claim and conquer, the living homage of living human hearts. (Cheers.) Here then I see one great token of the future success of the Anglican movement towards unity. And in the literary and intellectual order there has been a great advance in thought and sentiment; a principle such as that of the Development of Doctrine under proper safeguard, is now recognised as it was not then; whilst the great cardinal doctrines of Catholic_truth are now openly preached from pulpits and proclaimed from the housetops. In this, too, I see a great advance in the direction of Catholic unity and Catholic truth. Let me turn to the advance of the movement in my own communion, and in Roman Europe. Perhaps there are some who think we are over sanguine in speaking of any hopes of union. I would say, then, that the word "primarily" does not refer to time, and is not meant to dictate to the Spirit of God,bat is meant to say that, in the natural order of things the first relation of the Church of England is

[ocr errors]

towards that communion from which it was separated at the Reformation. I believe it more likely that it will be united to Rome before it will be united to Greece. If it should be otherwise, if these two separate communions do unite with each other, I should be the first to hail that union with joy-(cheers)—as a guarantee of the future reunion of both with that primacy anciently recognised by both alike. In the Roman Catholic Church it may be said that the dominant view and the dominant policy in Rome has been antagonistic, partisan, and Ultramontane in direction. I would simply say this, that the great Catholic reaction which took place after the French Revolution was in an Ultramontane direction. The great masters of the movement, such as Lammenais, were fervently Ultramontane. But the best and greatest of these, strong as were his views, and little as he knew of the Anglican Church, used these words:" If ever Christians should wish to approach one another, and everything ought to lead them to do so, the Church of England appears to be the body which ought to take the lead of that movement; while with one hand it touches us, with the other it touches bodies which we cannot touch-the outlying bodies of Christendom." If he spoke this then, ten times more would he speak this now. If that Catholic reaction was swayed by two men of gigantic genius, who were Ultramontane, there has been a counter reaction going on in an opposite direction. Of the leading spirits and genius in the Roman Catholic Church there is not one of the great names who belong to that section. Let me remind you of the words of one or two who have been gathered to their rest. I begin with a saying of a great German theologian, Möhler--words quoted with most emphatic approval by Cardinal Wiseman, "Here is a point at which Catholics and Protestants will in great multitudes some day meet and stretch a friendly hand to one another. Both, conscious of guilt, must exclaim, 'We all have erred, the Church alone cannot err.' This open confession of mutual guilt will be followed by a festival of mutual reconciliation." Again, I may remind you of the chivalrous Montalembert, one who has within the last few months passed to his rest after years of intense suffering, and who gathered up his strength in the last days of his life to pen those dying words, on which I will only read to you the comment of Father Perrot, "His failing hand traced those lines in which some have seen the cry of revolt, forgetting that at certain critical epochs the greatest Saints, e.g., St. Bernard and St. Catherine of Sienna, have held language as firm and courageous, aye, and often language bolder still." One more I will mention, who is in modern times the very ideal of a Priest, as Montalembert is the very ideal of a layman, who won back thousands of France's unbelieving population to the faith of Christ, whose name was a household word for loyalty to Christian truth, Lacordaire; his dying words are well known to you "I die a penitent Catholic, and an impenitent Liberal." So far then I have spoken of those who have been taken from us, and I say that all the great names are on the side of union, not on the side of exclusion. It should be clearly understood that there is a party in the Roman Church, who believe that they may hold dear as their heart's blood all the great ancient verities of the Faith, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Atonement, the mysterious grace of Sacraments, while they do not hold such modern inventions, (and do not hold them on grounds which have been stated again and again in the past few months), as the personal infallibility of the Pope. (Prolonged cheering.) I say that in every country in Europe the greatest men are on the side of unity and freedom. In France there are such Bshops as Darboys, Dupanloup, and Maret, the most learned and eminent of the French Clergy: and Gratry, who has defended Catholic truth against "the insolence of an aggressive faction." Then in Germany there is Strossmayer, and last but not least, one whose name has become almost as familiar a word in England as in his own country, one who has long laboured and prayed for the union of his divided country first, and then of all Christians throughout the world, the great and noble Döllinger. The very flower of the Hierarchy of the Roman Church were always on the side of unity, charity, and freedom, and of reuniting those who differ from one another. All who hinder such a movement, and there is no distinction between Catholic and Protestant fanaticism, are doing the devil's work and earning the devil's wages. (Cheers.) I might quote many others, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, but I have done enough to prove my point, that there is much in the tone and temper of believing Christians of separated communities, which gives us ground for hope and confidence. Thousands there are whom we know not, who have laboured and struggled and prayed for unity, over whose forgotten graves angels whisper that most musical and soothing of all the Beatitudes "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." But I know that there is one thought in the minds of many here to-night, which rises up against all that I am saying, “Ah! but what do you think of the Council?" I do not know what the Council will decide or will not decide. But for myself I feel not a shadow of doubt that the Convocation of this Council will not be a hindrance to, but will immensely tend to accelerate the unity of Christendom. (Cheers.) Again, I have said that there are grounds for confidence and hope in the past; there are certainly no grounds in the present for dallying, and resting upon our oars. Of course one answer is, it is all useless. What can you expect? What are you dreaming about? One of the most unfair articles I ever read appeared in the Standard this morning. Its two main points are these: you are all trying at this moment to bend the Church of England under the yoke

us.

of Papal Infallibility, and you are excluding all Protestant Dissenters, and leaving them out in the cold. No two statements could be more emphatically false. Papal Infallibility is no doctrine of the Catholic Church, and please God, it never will be. Neither do we leave Protestants out in the cold. I suppose that if Christendom is to be reunited at all, it must be actually done in some way or other. Is it more likely that the See of Rome will be reunited with the Baptist or the Jumper? or that the Greek Church will be first united to the Wesleyan Methodists? It is a mere matter of common sense that those three bodies who, whatever their different claims, have a conjoint possession of the three Creeds, and an identical hierarchical organisation, have far more in common than any others, and to reunite these would be to take the first step for reuniting the others too. Increased energy is indeed most needed. Look for a moment at the evils of disunion; we can see them all around Men tell us that it is an unpractical idea, that it is a vision or a dream. Are not things all very well as they are? Very well? Look at Christendom as it is, with two thirds or three quarters of the world unconverted to any form of Christianity. Look at the Christian metropolis of this Christian land. It is the merest hypocrisy to conceal the fact that one third of England is as entirely heathen as the interior of Africa. Are there not thousands unbaptized? thousands who grow up not knowing their right hand from their left? whose first language is obscenity and cursing, and who pass onward to a hopeless grave? And do you tell me still that this is a useless question. Look at the evil tempers which disunion promotes. Our divisions have given a spiteful, uncharitable, aggressive temper to all of us, in every communion; we are more ready to pick a hole in other people's Creeds than to believe our own. You may tell me that now is a time of peculiar difficulty; undoubtedly you are right. But look back. When have been the times when the Christian faith has most triumphed and Christianity has most advanced? They have been precisely the times of difficulty, times of trial. The one great marplot to Christian advance at home and abroad is our disunion; it is the little rift within the lute, making all its sweetness mute. But looking back to the past I cannot but see that the ages of trial and persecution have been the ages of the Church's triumph. It was not so much by the zeal of her preachers, as by the passion of her confessors, and the blood of her martyrs, that she conquered her position in Christendom. So now, when I look into the past, I see in it grounds for energy, and reasons for hope. To the worldly historian the past is only a magazine of lifeless facts, a treasurehouse of recollection, like that Temple which looks down in silvery whiteness on the waters of the Danube: it is a Valhalla of the empty dead. But to Catholic Christians it is all that, and it is far more than that. Leo, Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, all the great men who have built up the theology and inspired the devotion of Christendom, these live whom we call dead. And when I look to the past I do not look to the mere history of dead men, but I look to the living intercession of living Saints, who stand white-robed before the Everlasting Throne. Already we may see signs of change-signs of storm, it may be-but signs of future triumph. You remember how, when the Prophet sent his boy to the summit of Horeb, six times he stood upon it and said "There is nothing," nothing but the long, sandy plain of Esdraelon; nothing but the sluggish waves of the tideless Mediterranean, nothing but the cruel, cloudless heavens, like brass above them; but the seventh time he saw a cloud rising out of the sea like a man's hand. That cloud overspread the heavens, until they grew black with wind and rain. Even now that cloud, like the shadow of a man, is rising from the ocean deep, a cloud big with judgment yet with mercy too. In that cloud I see ground for energy and for hope. Welcome the tempest and the storm, welcome the earthquake and the fire, if only in them all, and through them all, we catch the music of that still small voice which whispers of unity to the listening ear of faith. Remember the angel's song, "Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonæ voluntatis." If it seem to us as though if that promise lingers it must be because our will is evil. Now is the time for men of good will to combine, to pray, and to work; not to rest upon their oars, but to unite all their energies in that great and noble work. It is a cause more sacred than the crusades of old, a nobler cause than ever humanity has had to struggle with before; a time for the utmost energy, the utmost confidence, the utmost courage. If you like to say that it is the dream of fanaticism, be it so. If it is fanaticism to believe in the future blessing of humanity, and that ultimately the Redeemer's dying prayer will be accomplished on earth; if this be indeed fanaticism, then, but only then, I confess myself a fanatic: then, only then, I glory in the name. (Loud cheers.) If only we will struggle, labour and pray; if we will but put our hands to the oars with a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether, such an effect may be wrought, that we (or at least our children) may see the dawning of that blessed day which will come, yet which will not come to us unless we labour for it.

"England of Saints! thy peace will come,
But not without the fight;

So come the contest when it may,

And God defend the right!"

Mr. Oxenham sat down amidst prolonged applause. The resolution being put from the chair, was carried unanimously, and after a vote of thanks to the Chairman, the meeting, which was a crowded and very enthusiastic one, broke up at a late hour.

[ocr errors]

A

PPEAL and WARNING.-Churchmen who invite attacks upon the Church by prophecies of disestablishment, and Churchmen who could make the National Church a mere Episcopal sect by appropriating (as at present) in a parish, are equally helping on the Liberation Society to overthrow the Church. freedom of Churches to rich and poor alike, as in all other Christian countries; thereby alone regaining the electoral masses whom the un-Christian pew-rent National Association for Freedom of Worship, 16, Northumberland-street,

Parish Churches to the well-to-do minority-a tenth or twentieth-of the families Every true Churchman will seek to save the Church by restoring the ancient

system has driven into irreligion or hostility.

Charing-cross; and Manchester. Subscriptions, 5s. Papers sont free.

THE CHURCH REVIEW of Saturday next will consist
Meetings of the ENGLISH CHURCH UNION and the ASSOCIATION for PRO-

MOTING the UNITY of CHRISTENDOM. Price 3d. stamped.
Office: 13, Burleigh-street, Strand.

The Church Herald.

LONDON, JUNE 22, 1870.

The Week.

THE meeting at the Architectural Society's Rooms in favour of Corporate Reunion was an eminent success. The management of it was not perfect; and the continued buzz of conversation indulged in round about the Chairman ought not to have been heard. There were many Roman Catholics present, persons of weight and distinction, some Orientals, and a fair sprinkling of the High Church Clergy. Many of the stock talkers of the E.C.U. were absent. Of the speeches the palm must certainly be given to the Roman Catholics. Mr. De Lisle's address was very able-clear, calm, temperate, and charitable; while at the same time he maintained his own ecclesiastical position with discreet firmness. Mr. Oxenham's address was masterly, well conceived, argued with lacidity and power, and full of pertinent references to the practical evils of religious disunion both in England and abroad. It was one of the most eloquent speeches we have heard from any platform. Mr. Lowder's speech, though too much like a Sermon, was full of good principles and valuable suggestions. Mr. Nugée, vigorous as ever, delivered a speech which was interesting and quite worth listening to. Mr. Peacock, a R.C. layman, spoke vigorously; Lord Kilcoursie and Lord Eliot with good taste and clearness. The enthusiasm throughout was great, and the sympathy of the meeting entirely with the principle of Corporate Reunion-i.e., Reunion both with Rome and Constantinople. We trust this meeting may be followed up by an annual gathering of a similar kind.

Dullness essential, and generally impersonated, best describes the E.C.U. meeting of 1870. Outside it was understood that an opposition had been organised, which, bearding the lion in his sylvan den, would demand an explanation of the Council's craftily devised apathy in regard to the Temple Case and the University Tests Bill. The aspect of the moderately filled room must have been highly reassuring to the leaders. Mute silence followed the President's inquiry for notice of any motions which individual members might desire to bring forward. It is noteworthy that the principal speakers were, almost without exception, men who would claim the title of Conservative.

One would have thought that the Bishop of Winchester had enough upon his hands already, more than enough, in sooth, for any two ordinary Bishops. Yet it seems that by some inscrutable necessity (sadly to the detriment of his Diocese, as he will not have a Suffragan) he is the one Prelate to stand sponsor for any measure of practical utility to the Church, which is introduced in the House of Lords. Of the two measures which he advocated last week, the first is intended simply to remedy an oversight in the Acts which provide for the union of contiguous Benefices. It declares

The

that where a Church has been removed, the inhabitants of the parish thus spiritually disfranchised, shall have a right to claim their accustomed privileges of worship, &c., in the Church of the united parishes, which it seems is at present conceded only as a favour, when it ought to be a right. other Bill is one of much larger scope and more general usefulness. It extends to all Beneficed Clergy the principle of the Bishops' Resignation Bill passed in the last Session, and enables those who have reached extreme old age, whose and enables thosd, or who have worn themselves out in the work of the Ministry, to resign their Benefices, under certain carefully devised provisions, and with the concurrence of the Bishop and Archbishop. They will then receive a pension equal to one-third of the value of the Living. This will in the majority of cases be but a very small sum, too little to enable many a man who feels unfit for work to retire, however much he might desire to do so. The principle of the measure has already met with general assent, and we may hope that when it has become law some arrangement may be made by which additional funds shall be provided for the honourable support of aged and invalid Clergymen. At the last election of the Hospital for Incurables one of the successful candidates was a Priest of many years standing, whose friends were thankful to obtain for him a shelter within its walls. This is but one out of numerous instances of clerical misfortune, for which our present system of Church administration makes no provision whatever. It is to be hoped that this enactment will prove to be the commencement of a wise and complete scheme for the better regulation of the poralities" of the Church.

tem

Clerical Disabilities Act on Friday night, in spite of Mr. Mr. Hibbert and his friends persisted in going on with the Cross's protest against the lateness of the hour; it was then past one o'clock on Saturday morning. The endeavour of Mr. Beresford Hope to procure the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee was but feebly supported, and unmistakeably failed. Still, in spite of the odds against them, the small band of Conservative Churchmen, led by Messrs. Collins and Cross, strenuously resisted this attempt to force the Bill through in a thin house. In the end, after many divisions had been taken on the question of adjournment, the Bill was committed pro forma, and the sitting ended at twenty minutes to four.

insane.

Some time ago the public were startled by the report of an attack upon an M.P. by his Secretary, who had become The gentleman so attacked, Mr. Buxton, distinguished himself last week, not only by a motion that the revision of the English Bible should be placed in the hands of a Royal Commission, but by trying to induce the Ministers to consult the President of the United States about it. His notion was that the two Governments might jointly employ distinguished savans, who should together produce for us a new version of the Scriptures, at a cost which he reckoned would be at the lowest £30,000! Really when we read the speech of this hon. member we cease to wonder at the mental affliction which befel his Secretary. Given a gentleman connected with the beer trade, whose name suggests 66 entire" after it, rather than "M.P.," it is required to furnish him with cram " for a speech on the revision of the Bible. He is to be provided at short notice with a sort of analysis of Home's Introduction, Lewis's History of the English Bible, and the Report of Convocation, mixed up together, so that he may seem to know all about it, and be able to talk fluently about Priestly authority, Hebrew MSS., the Codex Alexandrinus, Cadmon, and William Tyndale. What must be the brain work of a Secretary condemned to such a task as this? One noble sentiment is worth quoting, for it must certainly be Mr. Buxton's own. He is reported to have said that our authorised version," mark this! not the Scriptures themselves,

66

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »