CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 966, 5 November 1910, Page 10

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY. SOME IHTERESTINC LETTERS. [To The Editoh.] Sir, —I will loavo "Scrutator" to reply to tho unproved assertions of "Wellington Catholic," but may I remark that a.Catholio is a- member of the Catholic Church, which is tho Church planted by Christ. In any country there may be a branch or province of that Church. In Italy it is tho Roman branch, ill Britain tho English branch. Mombors of the latter aro broad-minded enough not to deny to members of the former the claim to Catholicity, though they resolutely dcclaro that they themselves aro Catholics. Many writers unfortunately havo been bo engrossed with their protestations against the ideas of Koine that thoy have gloried too much in being Protestants, while still remaining members of the (Jatliolio Church. To prevent all misunderstanding in tho future, I would ask everyone who may read this correspondence to give to the members of the Roman branch of the Church. Catholic their tme and distinguishing titlo, Papists. Whether Catholic or. not, they, are followers of the Pope, or Papa, or Bishop, of Rome; adherents of the Papacy.— I am, etc., CATHOLIC.

Sir—lt has frequently been pointed out by philosophers that error is difficult to eradicate,''and tho letter of your correspondent 'IPre Reformation,". published in to-day's issue, confirms such conclusions. Even, tho heading of his literary effort is misleading, for lio has evidently gathered his inspiration from the by-ways, instead of 'highways of intelleotualism. His. fiddle-string 'label-. led "by-law established," which he is so fond of scraping, is obviously out of tune, because it never meant that the Churcli was sot up _by the State .at any timo, and ono is. constrained ■ to think that he is unconsciously rasping on the string bearing 'tho legend: "Act of uniformity." Your correspondent reiterates the old threadbare assertion so dear to champions of tho Italian mission, that the Ohurcli of England was established l by tho Bisllop of Rome-in 597, while wo gather .from a powerful tradition, that Christianity was introduced, into England by tile, Apostle Paul, a.d., 63. Moreover, d«luctions from tho reports of Chrj-sostom, Jerome, Theodorot, and other historians confirm tho belief held by students of a mellowed school of thought, that Paul was the pioneer of.British Christianity and that the Church of England rest-B-on tho Church of Jerusalem by an unbroken line of oontinuity. The British Church, therefore, subsisted. entirely independent of tho Italian mission-un-til the closo of the sixth century, and was a church ancient and glorious hundreds of years before the papal invasion.

When Augustine and his . confreres landed in Britain he-was told by Dirnoth tho Abbot that the clergy and laity of the Church of England were Trillins; to co-operate with tho Bishop of -Rome in tho offices of. charity, but that they could not recogniso Gregory as their chief, on the grounds that they had a Primato of 'their own. But - in thoso days Rome was powerful, and for centuries the spirit of the Roman Church everywhere prevailed.. The directors of . the Italian mission are not Catholic outside of Italy, and they have no valid claim to such a. term ■ witlfti tho British Dominions. There is no such a porsonaee as the "Archbishop of Westminster" because no individual rading under; such a titlo is 'Toeognised bv the Catholics of the British Empire. Non-Catholics who worshin in conventicles under tho control of Italian rriissiohers may call thoir loaders anything' they like, but churchmen aro cheerfully .unconcerned about a little weakness of this- kind. When tho Bishop of Romcj confers kmVhthood on a British lay subject, his fellow citizens do not Tcoosmise it, neither is the status, of a British clerical subject raised by.'any ecclesiastical titlo conferred By a. foreigner.—l am, etc.-, . ' A CATHOLIC (non-Roman) LAYMAN.. Wellington, October 31. Sir,—l beg to ask your correspondent, "Scrutator," one questionlfas ho. alleges, the present State..Cburch in England is ono and tho same as that which St. Augustine planted on British shores, how is it that tho central act of worship, indeed, tho . one and . only absorbing centre of the faith planted in England by tho above-mentioned St. Angustiuo, viz.: the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is declared by tho Church "as by law established" to be a "blasphemous fable and dangei'ous deceit?''- Trusting some more, able' pou tha'n' mine -will take this matter up,—l ani,' etc "SEEKER AFTER TRUTH." - ' Sir, —A word with regard to "Churchman's" quotations, "which speak ' for themselves." Not possessing tho work of Cardiual do la Luzerne,, to which "Churchman" -refers,'l will not question the accuraoy of his . • quotation from it. . But granting l that ; tho ; late Archbishop of Paris used the words'.at--tributed to him, what then? The question is mainly an historical ono;' and. what claim has the late Archbishop, of Paris to be. regarded as an authority on English history? Your corre'spbn-.' dent's next appeal is'to Lingavd'; and liore are Lingard's words, which,'cer-: tainly do speak for themselves,' aud very decisively against tho validity ,of Anglican Orders. After describing tho rito employed on the occasion, here is how Lingard speaks of the consecration which Parker received at tho hands of Barlow : "How could the monition make a bishop? It bore no immediate connection with the episcopal character. .. . .' It was as fit a form for tho ordination of a parish -clerk,, as of the spiritual ruler of a'diocese." (Lingard, vol. V1.,-Note C.)—l am, etc.,. M. RYAN. October .31, 1910.

Sir,—Tho correspondence .-under the above, heading lias its humorous side. The spectacle of various individuals coiltending for that childish figment, .apostolic succession, is not going to commend their faith to tho common reason, and'must'.make anyone possessed of but nodding acquaintance with Church history, smile. Neither party can prove its claim—even for its presumed base of operations—the Apostle Peter—there is nothing but vague tradition. But oven supposing that proof wore possible, what a succession some of the Popes of the Middle Ages would supply!- That "golden cham" "would show many a link not gold—not even lead, but mud. And what about the rival Popes? 1 What, special virtue is inherent in a mechanical "succession"? Can they, not see that the only apostolic succession that is credible and worthy is a ■ succession of character? Then they contend for tile possession of that epithet "catholic.". Neither Church has exclusive claim, for neither exhausts its contents. It applies to tho general and total body of Christians by whatsoever name they may be called. Further, that mutual boast of continuity from apostolic times is futile, not to tho point, and incapable of proof. Again, the question is not historical, but moral. Tho vital miestion is not how a particular clmrcli lias come to bo but what it is ai the present timo, and how closely docs it approximate to tho apostolic ideal. And for pre-eminence in such approximation, I am afraid the honest inquirer will havo to go beyond the two Churches that figure in this I discussion to some of those Churches | tbat are held in. little esteem by thorn, i

One thing is certain, that between tho fishermen that followed the Nazarene and the papacy, with its gigantic pretensions and claims, together with the My Lord Bishop of oither Church, there is a continont of separation, Finally, your Anglican correspondents are loth to admit, what is solf-ovidont to the outsider, that tho Church as roformed by Henry 1 VIII was radically dilt'orcnt in character and creed from tho Anglican Pro-Reformation Church. Says Green: "Henry VIII changod tho whole character of tho English Church." Tho King's act of supremacy gave the Church a new head. Tho very articles of its faith were drawn -up- by him. Convocation was deprived of its power, and all the clergy, from the Primate to the meanest deacon, received from Henry their right to exercise spiritual powers. And ho alono defined orthodoxy or declared heresy. If this docs not imply a .new Church tho terms have no meaning. But let uot "Pre-Reformation" boast overmuch for tlie essential difference between tho English Church before and after Henry VIII is no greater than' tho dilferenco between the Roman Catholic Church of to-day, and that which existed in Rome iu the first three centuries. Indeed, tho one has changed for .tho bettor, aud tho other for tho worse. Meanwhile, let' tho partisans of either side take to heart that pregnant saying of our Lord: "For where two or three are gathored together in my hanie, there am I in tho midst of them." There is tho charter of tho true Church.—l am, etc., F. A. WILLIAMS. Baptist Manse, I'etone.. Sir,—Tho adjective "Catholic," stripped 1 of all adventitious significations, literally means universal, or ' general. Considering that Christians are divided into so many sects, common sense would indicate that 110 Christian Church has tho exclusive, right to arrogate to itself the title "Catholic." Judged by tlio number of its 1 adherents, the Buddhist religion has tho greatest claim to bo called "Catholic," as tho disomies off Buddha outnumber by some millions Christians of all creeds put together. It is time that Anglicans, and Romans ceased hair-splitting, and united as Christians to resist the sweeping advance of their common foes— materialism, infidelity, and everything that is anti-Christian. —I am, etc., GALLIO. ■■Wellington, October 29, 1910.

Sir, —It is always difficult'to carry on a controversy on tho abovo subject with" wen who aro unacquainted with theology and canon law. Two of your correspondents, viz., "Churchman" and "Keen Anglican," evidently bolong to this class. "Churchman" is ignorant of < tho very fundamental theological principles underlying tho dispute about tho validity of Anglican orders, otherwise'ho would not havo appealed to the passages from tho writings of the late Archbishop of Paris' and Dr. Lingard. Neither of these passages is in favour of the validity of Anglican orders; because the Archbishop, while classing the Anglican Church as "one of the Protestant sects," is referring only to the fact that she preserved tho outward form of epispocacy. . He is not expressing any opinion at all as to whether Anglican bishops are valid bishops in tlio Catholic and historical sense. Dr. Lingard refers only to the fact that a coromony of consecration was gone through in Archbishop Parker's case. This is not. denied by any Catholic historian, but what is denied is that the ceremony'was sufficient to make him a valid bisliop on account of defect of' form and intention. That it was a defective form was practically admittedly the Anglican Church. itselfbecause' it changed its ordinal on this point a luindred years. later hi 1662, but too lato to be of any effect. The statement that tho Pope was willing to allow tho use of the Book of Common Prayer is devoid of all historical foundation. It has not a vestige of contemporary evidence to support it. Camden, tho earliest Anglican historian who mentions it, says: "I.never could find it in any writing-, and I do: not believe any writing of it to exist. To gossip with the mob is unworthy of any historian" (History 59). Fullerspeaks in the same terms about it'.'

"Keen Anglican's" : knowledge* "of canon law is scant, or lie would not appoal to the canons of Antioch and ;Ephcsus in support of liis contention. If his interpretation of them were right, thou' tho position of tho Archbishop of Canterbury himself would have been uncanonical from tho very beginning because when the Seo was first established by tho I'opo and St. Augustine consecrated by tho papal vicar at Aries, and 'placed over it, tWo were other bishops already in Er.e&nd, viz., the British bishops/

; : T\ill; "Keen Anglican" explain',Why •an identical act .'of the Popo is canonical jii 597j and. uncahonical in 1850? 'But tho meaning of- the two canons 'quoted _by him' is that no. . '"bishop" should invade' another province which 'has not. heretofore,' from tho.Nverv be[ginning, 1 .been, under the hand.'of. him'self ,or his ■ predecessors" (canon of .Ephesus,-quoted by."Keen Anglican"). Now,, in Church law: the Pope was held to liavo. jurisdiction over all the pio;vmees of tho'.Church, so that. he. is not : meant at all by , this caiiori. > "According to the common, law 0 f the Church m force from the earliest' ages.'! there " an axiom, "Papa est supra; jura," Hlie lope is abovo the law," and this rasiom -is admitted by -such great.- modioval English canonists as Lynriewood, Bishop Grosseteste, and- Archbishop Arundel. Pope Pius IX was, ther*fore, quite within his rights, and acted quite canonically when he restored the Latholie hierarchy in 1850. A closer acquaintance with Church law would have deterred "Keen Anglican" from making the statement that tho' Pope's action was a "direct violation of the law of the Church."—l am, etc., CANON LAW.

Sir,—"Wellington Catholic" lias ignored what I said in my reply to "PreRoforination." Kindly allow me, therefore, to repeat that the changes that have affected tho Church of England in tho matter of doctrino are not' nearly so, great as those that havo affected the Church of Koine, and that if the former havo destroyed tho identity of tho Church of England, the latter "have, a fortiori, destroyed tho identity of the Church of Rome. So great is the change in the latter that if a pre-Refor-lhation Christian could return and in a Roman Church give utterance to his thoughts on later Roman developments ho would, if he claimed membership, havo to cliooso between abject recantation and excommunication.

Ignoring these things, "Wellington Catholic" denies us the name of "Catholic," and seoms to think th'at wo should resign it out of courtesy. But Rome builds claims upon accordcd courtesies, and thus has set up tho doctrino of tho Papal supremacy. We have nover ceascd to recito creeds expressing belief in the Catholic Church. Wo are. members of tho Catholic Church, and hold tho Catholic faith un-. defiled by such accretions as would astonish a pre-Reformation. Christian. Therefore wc cannot comply with "Wellington Catholic's" cool request.- We have given proof of our courtesy in abandoning the use of a word expressive of tho Roman attachment to tho Pope—l mean "Papist"—because it was held obnoxious, and now find that offence is given, or pretended to bo received, if any other term than "Catholic" is applied to tho Roman Church or its adherents. Hero is our difficulty. Wc want to be courteous, but obviously cannot comply with a demand that requires us to decatholiciso ourselves. We refuse absolutely to surrender "Catholic" to tho ex-clusive possession of any one body of. Christians

as a title that we may bo classed by that body as "non-Catholics." It is unfair to seek advantages by tho artifice of soliciting courtesy, and if wo have to use such a term as "Romauist" it is because no other is given us that wo can uso that would not raise a protended offence. Yet wo are called •'Protestants" without regard to courtesy. But the word "Catholic" is not tho contrary of "Protestant," but of "heretical"—another reason why wo cannot surrender. So tho (Roman) Catholic Dictionary says tho term "Catholic" was applied amongst Christians to tho true Uliurch "in order to distinguish it from the heretical sects." Our protest was nover against, the Catholic Church, but against tho errors that came in by Papal pretensions and other means. I cannot fittingly protest if I am outside the society affected by my. protest. Protest and secession represent entirely different attitudes. _ The former was, and is, our imperative duty. Any secession at the .Reformation,was on the part of Home. The great St. Hilary was all tbe more Catholic when he protested to an Arian Pope: "Again, and a third time, I say, anathema to thee, apostate Libe'rius." - .

Street arabs and dictionaries may bo sufficient guides to "Wellington Catholic," who. apparently does not know, that tho latter merely collect the various uses to which word 3 arc put. He tells us that the Catholic Church is composed-mily of members "in communion with tho Church of Rome." These words are but a circumlocution for "Roman." What, then, apart from controversial methods, is the objection to the expression "Roman Catholic," and what other can we honestly uso ? We will gladly uso any our friends may suggest so long , as they do not require us to surrender our convictions, principles, and position.. There ,is nothing in the word ."Catholic" connoting the alleged supremacy of Rome, a supremacy, ,by the way, that has more to do with tho story of Romulus and Remus than with St. Peter. The learned Dr. Dollinger did not believe that he ceased to bo a "Catholic" when ho withdrew .from the Roman Church on account of the imposition of a now doctrine. The part ho took in the old Catholic movement shows not only this, but that ho saw that tho Roman Church had undergone a vast change. Dr. Mac Coll writes: "After tho Vatican Council, Dr. Dollinger bogan. the study of- tho history of the. Papacy afresh, and ho told me some yeara afterwards that much as he knew about the system of forgeries on which the Papacy had been gradually reared, lie was - not in the least prepared for the mass of cumulative evidence which his special study of the subject had revealed to him. Ho was engaged in arranging his materials for a great work on tho subject when death overtook him. Of course, a whole series of writers, Aquinas included, accepted these forgeries in good faith as authentic history." Thus wo are Catholics, though not in communion with the' Pope. The Papacy is an. accretion, and ■ therefore itself non-Catholic.—l. am,' etc., ' - SCRUTATOR. . Wellington, October 29, 1910. [This correspondence is' now closed.]