ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22304, 19 January 1938, Page 6

ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

TO TBS EDITOR 0» THB PBE3S. Sir.—As an instructed layman of the Church of England, I am glad tp have the opportunity of replying to the Rev. Frank B. Seward’s somewhat un-called-for letter. It is admittedly a regrettable fact that very many of the clergy of the Church of England are affected to varying extents by the teachings of modernism, but the Apostles and Nicene creeds are still parts of the doctrinal standards of the Church of England, and are likely to be so for all time. These proclaim (inter alia) as the Church’s doctrine, that Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and that we look forward to “the resurrection of the body.” As regards the latter doctrine, no instructed or rational Christian would expect a resurrection of the body as we know it. He would look for a resurrection with the “spiritual body” referred to by St. Paul in his fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. This, and all other creed statements, have to be read and understood in the light of Holy Scripture, the one first-hand source of doctrine we possess. The virgin birth of Jesus is one of the foundation beliefs of the Church of England, and is derived direct from Holy Scripture. The fact that some of our modernistic clergy do not believe it, or doubt it, cannot make it not an article of belief of the Church of England. Mr Seward waxes witty on this subject, but I would put it to him and your readers:—“ Which is the worse: (1) for a Church to have as an article of belief (though it may not be accepted by all her clergy) that Jesus the Son of God, and He alone, was born immaculate; or (2) for a Church to take away from the Son of God his divine prerogative of being the

sole immaculately conceived man—which is done by maintaining that his human mother was also immaculately conceived, and that she is in fact the “mother of God”? And this blasphemy in disguise Rome makes binding on all her members as true Church teaching. It is the sin of Peter and Judas Iscariot in one, made into a Church doctrine. Mr Seward’s references to Roman Catholicism as being the teaching of the Church “which is vested in the Chair of Peter" is a mere begging of an unproven question; and this is true, not only of Mr Seward’s letters, but of the large amount of Roman controversial literature that has come my way. The famous words of Jesus to Peter about his being given the power of binding and loosing were spoken on another occasion to all the disciples: there is no Bible evidence that, Peter had any authority or leadership' over all the other apostles and early Christians; it is open to very grave doubt whether Peter ever so much as set foot in Rome; not a tittle of contemporary historical evidence has ever been discovered to prove that Peter ever was bishop of Rome; nor is there any Bible evidence that this supposed primacy of Peter was to be transferable to all or any of his successors in that very mythical Chair of Peter. Mr Seward’s references to modernism are indeed singularly unfortunate, seeing that practically all Rome’s leading dogmas are quite modern, though she omits to call them “modernism.” Let anyone try to find in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Fathers of the first four centuries, such unmistakably Romish teachings as transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, the invocation and worship of saints, the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, or the infallibility of the Pope, and he will find that the most exhaustive search will prove barren of results. Most of these dogmas were unknown for a thousand years after the apostles were dead. Two of them date only from the nineteenth century. The doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception was for centuries a heresy, was then for centuries a matter of dispute among Roman divines, and then in 1854 was made into belief binding on all Roman Catholics. Surely this is "modernism with a vengeance! Mr Seward’s boast that the claims of the Papacy “either rest on a divine guarantee or are impostures is founded on grotesque over-confidence. Until evidence can be produced by Romanists that Jesus meant Peter to be spiritual ruler of the apostles and early Christians, bishop of Rome, and donor of his spiritual prerogatives.to all his successors in that bishopric, instructed Protestants will continue to regard the claims of the Papacy as impostures rather than as resting on a divine e > tc. cKER January 18, 1938.

TO THI BDITOB OV THB PBBBft. Sir, —Thousands of members of the Church of England are ashamed of the indignity offered to the faith by the findings of the Doctrinal Commission, and many will agree with much of what the Rev. F. B. Seward has written by wdy of condemning those findlnfut the fact remains that either the Roman “barge-pole” attitude towards the Church of England is right or it is wrong. If it is right, then every Anglican must submit to the Holy See, in spite of the glory and the spiritual vigour of the Anglican Communion. But if that attitude is wrong—and we believe that it is wrong—then all the mistakes of our bishops, and our other internal corruptions, including the toleration of heresy and even of immorality. cannot make the Roman attitude right. . . The present flair for modernism is very distressing to those of us who dislike it but it is as nothing compared with, the apathy, ignorance, and worldliness of the eighteenth century, from which the Spirit-guided Oxford Movement is delivering ns.—Yours, etc.. CECIL E. B. MUSCHAMP. January 18, 1938. '

TO TUB EDITOR Of THE PRESS. Sir, The Rev. F. B. Seward so persistently trails his coat-tails before us poor benighted Anglicans that it would be unkind not sometimes to notice it. Father Seward is disappointed with the report of the Archbishops Commission on Doctrine He would have been wise to await the full text of the report before passing judgment upon it. The cabled summary is obviously an inadequate statement or the commission’s findings. It is true that there are some Anglicans who believe that the doctrine of the Incarnation does not depend upon the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, To that extent they are no doubt heretical; but when was the Church ever free from heretical infection? We cannot go back to the old ways and rekindle Ihe fires of the Inquisition. CBy the way, how does Rome deal with heretics nowadays?) The other point mentioned, that of “the resurrection of the body,” is not what Father Reward seems to suspect. It is merely recognising that the Creed is to be read with St. Paul’s assertion that "that which thou sowest, thousowest not the body that shall be . . . it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” ■ _ ■ _ It is touching to observe Father Seward’s concern for the Church of his former allegiance. One would have thought that he would have rejoiced at its apparently impending dissolution. However, we may safely adapt the words of Gamaliel: “If this counsel or this work be of .men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.” I do very heartily agree with Father Seward’s last sentence: “If its [Rome’s] claims could be modified they would no longer be worth anything—they either rest on a Divine guarantee or are impostures.”—Yours, etc., (Rev.) H. S. HAMILTON. Methven, January 18, 1937.

TO THE EDITOR or THE PRESS.

Sir, —Charity, as well as common sense, should have saved Father Seward from baaing such a tirade on a brief cabled report of what is evidently a * document of considerable length. To anybody acquainted with the subject matter, it was evident that something had gone wrong in the compression and transmission of the report. It will be wise to wait for the full text before concluding Jhat the commission or the English Church as a whole is in doubt about, or has definitely rejected any articles of the Catholic faith. Father Seward says, "In its inception, the Anglican sect rejected the teaching authority of the Church.” If. by “Anglican sect” he means the Church of England, will he please give the date of this “inception”? As to his statement that “the teaching authority of the Church is vested in the chair of St. Peter,” all I can say here is that there are. and. always have been, millions of Christians who do not believe it;'that that is the main point upon which the Roman Catholic propagandist has to convince his hoped-for convert; that it is the sub. ject of long and learned discourses on both sides; and that it cannot be settled off-hand in one dogmatic sentence by Father Seward. Again, what right has Father Seward to’ say, “Even the Anglo-Catholics, once so orthodox, now often use elaborate ceremonial to cloak infidelity”? The Anglo-Catholics are a very large body of devoted men and women, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, and layfolk Father Seward dismisses them as infidels and accuses them further of hypocrisy —putting up a smoke-screen

of incense and other ceremonial adjuncts to hide their infidelity. The reunion of Christendom is a subject for the study and prayers of all God’s people. The reunion of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church is a big Part of the whole task set before us. Such tasks cannot be accomplished in .the spirit which says, “The Papacy would not touch Anglicanism—as the phrase goes —•with a barge poleV I wish Father. Seward would steep himself in the spirit of Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Mercier, and many t other Roman Catholics of high and low degree who have advanced, and are advancing, the cause of reunion in charity and forbearance. Yours, etc ? _ N TAyLOB January 18, 1938.