Dependence, Or, The Insecurity of the Anglican Position

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Preface

The immediate origin of the following pages will be found in Chapters I. and IX., in which I have replied to two attacks on my book, * Authority.* To the other numerous notices and reviews of that volume, I have given no direct reply. The Catholic press gave it a warm welcome, which only needs grateful acknowledgment. The Anglican press has indulged in a great deal of vehement rejoinder, but without anything that I can call solid argument Mr. Gore's attack has been met by Father Richardson's book, *What are the Catholic 'Claims?' — to which I would refer any reader who wishes for a complete and concise reply to the arguments usually advanced in favour of their position by those who are called Ritualists.

The following pages deal with the historical argument, which once seemed to me sound, but which I have here endeavoured to show does not support the Anglican position.

I wish to add to Chapter VII., on Henry VIII., that, in speaking of that king as possessed of a strong will, I must not be understood to speak of him as a strong character. The very reverse seems to be the truth. But

VI Preface

when once his passions were enUsted in a cause, he could be determined, even to madness, for the time being.

A book has recently appeared on *The Petrine Claims/ by Dr. Littledale, which contains, so far as I can see, nothing new, but which seems to me to mark an epoch in this controversy, and for this reason. The 'Society

* for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge,' — the most representative society in the Church of England, with the archbishops and bishops for its patrons — publishes this work * under the direction of its Tract Committee,' and it is dedicated, with permission^ to Bishop Stubbs. And this, after a previous publication by the same writer has been so thoroughly discredited.

This book opens with a statement which, with some, will surely suggest a different line of thought from what the writer intended. A building * planned, in part at least,

* by Pope Leo I. more than fourteen hundred years ago ' (p. i) must have more to say for itself than is to be found in this book. In point of fact, the writer proceeds in his second sentence to deliver himself of this shameful misrepresentation. He says that 'whatever within the

* sphere of faith and morals is found existing uncensured

* in the Latin Obedience, must be regarded as having the 'sanction of infallibility at its back.'

By what logical process can the writer show that the Vatican Decree involves the absurd position that the attribute of Infallibility is not merely possessed by the See of S. Peter, but that it is exercised in every nook and corner of the world, on every sheet of paper that issues from the press? What Catholic ever maintained such an absurdity ? and what are we to think of a grave society like the S. P. C. K. endorsing and disseminating such a

Preface vii

misrepresentation, after all that has been written on the subject ?

On the second page, the writer has the hardihood to quote Innocent III., when speaking of *the Roman

* Church ' — i.e. the local Roman Church — as though he were using the term in its modern sense, as used by the writer of the book.

The last chapter, on the Collapse of the Papal Succession, besides its misrepresentation of canon law, contains a reductio ad absurdum of the Anglican position. It is amazing that a responsible society should set its seal to such misapplied ingenuity.

One may well ask, Is it on this line of argument that the Church of England places its * dependence ' ?

I conclude with the remark that the following pages are the fruit of a conviction, deep beyond words, that no blessing that a human soul can receive is so great as that of entrance into communion with the See of S. Peter, except, and by reason, of the graces to be found when within. The writer would take for his own the words of those who had discovered plenty outside the gates of Samaria, * We do not well : this day is a day of good

* tidings, and we hold our peace.' *I believed, and

* therefore have I spoken.'

S. Charles College, Notting Hill, London, W. May 1889

Chapter I. The Council Of Jerusalem

Favourite subject with Anglicans, 7— The Author of the * Roman * Question ' selects a single sentence and ignores the rest of my treatment of S. Chrysostonfs evidence, 9^11 —He contends ako that S. James mtisi be meant when S. Chrysostom speaks uf someone being * entrusted with the chief rule/ ii-i4_Bttt the position occupied by S, Peter generally, and in particular at the Council of Jerusalem, is, according to S. Cbrysostom, one of authority, 14-27— Mistake of Symeon for Simon Peter, 27-28 —Summary of errors contained in the pamphlet^ 29.

Chapter II. 'peter Hath Spoken By Leo.'

Importance of the Council of Chalcedon, 35^37— Preliminary' history— S. Leo defines* the Faith, 35— The Robber ^ynod- S. Leo anxious for a Council— teaches the Patriarch of Consti^ntinople and the Emperor— deprecates immediate Council, but consents, 40 — The Synod assembles —Bows to Leo at once 4t— Why S, Cyril mentioned, 42— Leo's Tome not reviewed for revision T 4^-44 — The Council's sentence on Dioscorus owns the authority of the Holy See, 45- S. CyriFs name joined with S, Leo's, why, 47— Emperor puts S, Leo's Tome side by side with the Niccne Faith ^ 48 — ^Relationship of Rome to b. Peter 49.

X Contents

Chapter III. The Canon Invalidated

Constantinople's ambition, 51, 52 — The 28th Canon of Chalcedon, its expression, 54, 55 — The Papal confirmation deemed necessary, 56, 57 — Leo acted on the ground of his relationship to S. Peter, 57-60— Canon Bright's account unsupported, 61 — Mr. Gore's citation of the Council in TruUo, 62-64.

Chapter IV. Liberius, The Confessor

Anglican writers on Liberius, 65, 66 — Canon Bright's admission, 67 — Contemporary opinion on Liberius, 68 — Sozomen's account untrustworthy, 69— Passage from S. Jerome needs authentication, 70 — Passage from S. Athanasius fairly doubted, 71 — Liberius a great Confessor, 72 — DifEculties of supposing any lapse, 73- 7^'

Chapter V. Honorius Declining To Define

Our Lord's human will, 77— Honorius entrapped by Sergius — Monothelism combated by successive Popes, 80 — Sixth Council condemned Honorius for lack of vigilance, 81, 82 — The inerrancy of the Holy See in ex fo/y/^dfr^ judgments assumed, 86.

Chapter VI. Alexander VI., The Political Ecclesiastic

Use made of Alexander's life, 88, 89 — The Homilies of the Church of England, 91 — Burchard's account of Alexander, 93-96 — Guicciardini's account of Alexander, 96 — Lucretia Borgia, 98-100 — State of things at Alexander's election, 101-103 — Alexander's daily life as Pope, 103, 104 — No adequate proof of his election having been simoniacal, 104-108 — The Popes of the 1 6th century, their greatness, 1 10— Alexander's relation to the Papacy not that of Barlow's to the Anglican succession, 113.

Contents xi

Chapter VII. Henry VIII., The Ecclesiastical Politician

The Royal supremsicy a. doctrine ^ 1 1 5-1 1 7 — Involved a fundamental change, Ii8 — Which broke the continuity between the pre-

Reformation and the post-Reformation Establishment, 1 19-1 24 — s

The new status not desired by the clergy, 126- 130— The king's f

divorce, the real cause shown by contemporary evidence, |

130-134 :

Chapter VIII. Elizabeth And Her Clergy

r

The old religion abolished by force, 135-139 — Ecclesiastical jurisdiction taken over by the queen, 141 — No diocesan bishops consented to Archbishop Parker's election, 143 — The case of I

Coverdale, 145 — The Province in prison, 147 — Goldwell, Bishop S

of S. Asaph, 148— The Queen's exercise of jurisdiction, 149 — t

The fruit of this later on in the case of Archbishop Abbott, 151 J

— 'Its immediate results, 152 -156.

Chapter IX. The Decline Of Dogma

Changed attitude of English Churchmen towards Rome, 157— Declension in zeal for Dogma, 158-161 — Misrepresentations of the * Church Quarterly Review,' 161-164 — Reviewer's accusation of ignorance unfounded, i6$— His ignoratio elenckiy 166 — His instances of change of teaching : ( i ) M. Nicolas speaks of no laxity in the teaching body, 168 — (2) Father Clarke's articles reveal no rift, but the contrary, 170— (3) M. Le Noir's article most decided on the subject of hell, 173 — In the Catholic Church, belief in hell (i) rests on authority, 178— (2) is balanced by authoritative teaching on Purgatory, and Masses for the dead, 179.

xii Contents

Chapter X. Pusey And Laud

Extraordinary dependence placed on Dr. Pusey, 182 — Accounted for by (l) his piety, 183 — (2) his chivalry, 184— (3) his industry, 185 — His mistakes as to the African Church, Mr. Allies' book, and Archbishop Chichele, 185- 189 —In controversy with Rome, he loses his accuracy, 191 — His erroneous theory of the Church's note of unity, 192 — The Vatican decree not affected by his instances of Papal contradictions, 200— His errors as to the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, 204— Especially as to Turrecremata, 212— Archbishop Laud's misrepresentation of S. Augustine, 214.

Chapter XI. The Lincoln Prosecution, Or Metropolitical Jurisdiction

Circumstances under which the Bishop of Lincoln is prosecuted, 218 — Must be some authority superior to the Archbishop, 220— Rome 7vas owned as superior, 221 — Now it is said that a Province can be autonomous, and Africa is quoted as an instance, 224 — The case of Africa considered, in the days of S. Augustine, 225 — The present position of the Anglican Establishment, 233 — Toleration of contradictory teaching incompatible with the idea of a Church, 236.

Appendix on S. Jerome's Letter to Evagkius . . 239

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

A VERY influential writer in the Church of England has lately challenged ray accuracy with respect to the translation in my book on * Authority ' of a passage in S. Chrysostom^s writings. His pamphlet is entitled ^A Reason for Distrusting the Rev. Luke Rivington^s * Appeal to the Fathers/ I have devoted a chapter (Chap. I.) to the consideration of this pamphlet^ and have, 1 hope, shown sufficient cause for rebutting the accusation. But there is another point raised in this writer*s pamphlet, to which I have only partially rephed in that chapter. And it is on this point that I wish to make some introductory remarks.

The writer considers that from that single sentence \n my book he can discern the * workings of my mind ' at a great crisis/ Were it not that the writer's name is such an open secret, and that his position of esteem in the Church of England gives a peculiar weight to his wordSj I should not have thought it worth while taking further notice of these words.

As it is, I feel constrained to protest, even more than 1 have done below (Chap. L) that the single incident to which he refers as giving the clue to the workings of my mind at a great crisis, was of infinitely less importance than two other points.

One of these, as I have said elsewhere, was the History of the Council of Chalcedon. None of my reviewers have attempted to answer my argument on that head. One of them, in an article which I forbear to characterise, except to say that I have never seen a more thoroughly unrestrained mode of writing (I mean the ' Literary Church-

* man ') even deliberately asserts that I did not write that portion of my book myself. How a paper, whose title contains in it the word * Church,' can deliberately utter such a falsehood, I am at a loss to understand. I wrote every word of it myself in complete solitude. It contained the reason which finally weighed with me, so far as my intellectual conversion was concerned. I do not see how any member of the English Church can reconcile his position with the history of the Council of Chalcedon. Let him read, for instance, Cardinal Newman's brilliant summary of that Council, or Mr. Allies' account of S. Leo in his * Throne of the Fisherman,' or Bishop Hefele's account of the Council i?i his * History of Church Councils,' not to mention any longer accounts, and then let him say to himself, * Is the attitude of the Church of England ' towards the See of Rome in any way capable of being ' reconciled with the principles of Church life which we ' find in vogue at the Council of Chalcedon ? ' But I have added a few thoughts on this subject in a separate chapter (Chap. II.), and therefore I proceed to a second point, in reference to what the author of the * Roman

* Question ' calls the workings of my mind at a great crisis.

I have said that my ultimate convictions were not in the least due to the incident concerning the Oxford translation of S, Chrysqstom, but to the further investigations which I was led to make.

But this is not all, and I am most anxious to take the opportunity of saying something further in consequence of what the author of the * Roman Question ' has said.

The passage which he has selected for his quotation from my book contains another reason for my action.

I did not give this in full, as indeed I should have preferred giving no hint at all as to such matters, only circumstances compelled me. I have said that God gave me light, and that that light came through the study of a particular passage of the Church's life — not, I hope, to the neglect of other passages, but with special emphasis on that. This is strictly true. But if this had been all, doubtless I should not have acted on that light — I should have dallied with my conviction, waited, and tampered with this grace; pretended that one needs many more years to settle the simple question as to which is God's Church ; thought it humility to doubt my capacity to settle such a question at all ; listened to the voice of affection, pleading for the enjoyment of all the ties, and all the esteem, and the many pleasant features of life, which were then mine ; and, above all, perhaps I should have fallen back on the idea that because I found myself where I was in God's Providence, I ought to remain there — reasons, plausible reasons, one and all of which, however, every Apostle had to set at nought, and without the disregard of which, no heathen could ever enter the Christian fold. Why did I not Hsten to these plausible suggestions? I expressly excluded the following incident from my book, but the author of the

* Roman Question' by pretending that the passing incident to which he refers explains * the working of my mind at

* a great crisis,' compels me to speak.

I had, then, been coming to a gradual conclusion on another matter. Years ago I began to ask our Lady's intercession, and shortly after that I went up to see Cardinal Newman, to be received. But I was diverted from my purpose. That grace was lost to me through giving in to the temptation to wait, I was dissuaded from all invocation of the Saints by three most trusted divines in the Church of England. In 1887-8, however,

I read again on the subject, and in the end of January 1888 I came to the conclusion that in repudiating the Invocation of the Saints we had denied an article of the Faith. East and West — I mean the schismatic East, as well as the Church in communion with Rome — were at one on this point. Whether M. PodedonostzefF, who replied to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference, would consider it right to hold communion with the Anglican Establishment in spite of this, I do not know. When things are managed by a Procurator, there is no knowing what the schismatic East might say or do. But the Patriarch of Constantinople, in correspondence with Archbishop Tait, pointed out the passage in the Thirty-nine Articles on the Invocation of Saints as * sa- * vouring of novelty.' Certain it is that, in all her Liturgies and authorised prayers, the Eastern schism holds fast to the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints. And yet I had been silent to the Saints for years. I had not spoken to our Lady for at least seventeen years. I held that no honest member of the Anglican Church could invoke her aid. I know that Dr. Pusey said that *we' should not object to the *Ave Maria' or *Ora pro nobis' in itself But, as a matter of fact, he discouraged its use, and I did the same. It became clear to me, however, that this was wrong, and on the Feast of her Purification I knelt down and entreated the aid of her intercession in this matter of allegiance to the Holy See. I entreated her to win for me, by her glorious intercession, light and courage, for I knew that if I read things one way I should need courage to act on my convictions. I rose from my knees with both. The light which our Lord then gave me was too clear to make extraordinary courage needful, or, rather, it was that light which, coming straight from Him, is accompanied by the warmth of divine love, and to love, nothing is difficult.

Now I mention this because an important principle is at stake in discussing the question of the reasonableness of submission to the See of S. Peter. It is, I hold, capable of rigorous proof that such submission is infinitely more reasonable than attachment to the Church of England. But the act of submission belongs to the supernatural, and anyone who discusses the question, as though it could be settled by human reason, is deluding his fellow-creatures. Reason is equal to seeing that the religious body in communion with the See of S. Peter alone has the notes of a Church. But something more is required than the perception of this. Entrance into the Church is, as the Holy Father said to me last Easter Day, *a special grace.' I added within myself, *Yes,

* and it is not of him that runneth, but of God that showeth

* mercy ' (Rom. ix. 16). I say this because often the last temptation with which the Evil One plies the soul is the suggestion, * You are not worthy.' No, indeed, and God often calls those who seem the least worthy of His grace. It is the mystery of predestination.

It is, therefore, in vain that Anglicans endeavour to fathom the mystery of a call into the Catholic Church, God calls * things that are not ' \ix, that are thought to be nothing] * to bring to nought things that are.' He calls a Matthew or a Magdalen, and renders us no account of the reason of His call. He calls them often to leave all \

at once — some, indeed, to go bury their father — but others j

to let the dead bury their dead, and to follow the aill. \

We who are called can least of all explain why we are. ;;

We can see that certain arguments, or facts, or reasons jj

on which we once rested, have no value. But why we :!

see this so plainly we cannot say. We have to give a ^t

reason for the hope that is in us, and we can give it. j

But something we cannot explain. We only know * the \

* Spirit bloweth where it listeth.' We are bound to explain to others that their arguments do not hold, that their defences are insufficient, and that they ought, in good reason, to follow in the same track ; but that is all we can do, save to pray ; and the Lord, who opened the heart of Lydia that she attended to the things spoken by Paul, may work the same in the hearts of those whom we address. * Therefore judge nothing before the time ' (i Cor. iv. 5).

Chapter I. The Council Of Jerusalem

Kal Zpa tirep ^XF^^ vofxoOerriBTivai Bri oHhy ^vKdrrtiv rhv ySfjuov, 6 U4rpos ei(riiyay€* rh Se rifxerepov, Kid ird\ai irapa^exOev rovro olrds <^<Ti, And notice that what had to be enacted as law, viz* that we have not to keep the law, Peter introduced. But the domestic practice, and what had been handed down of old," this he (James) speaks of. — S. Chrysostom.

There are few subjects to which an English High Churchman turns more readily than to the Council of Jerusalem. Travelling some years ago to the South of India for two days and two nights on a stretch, I had for my companion, during part of my journey, a native priest. His white cassock, red cincture, red biretta, and dark face, for he belonged to the South, formed a perfect picture. Add to that, the exquisite politeness of the Hindu, with that dash of energy which comes from * the * spiritual washing,' the Tamil name for Baptism. It was not long before we were in conversation on religious matters. I remember registering an inward vow that I would do nothing to disturb that good man's faith. I thought that in controversy I was sure of having the best of it. But this good priest's zeal could not resist endeavouring to show me that if I held as much truth as I did, I ought to hold more, and to hold it all on a different basis. Our conversation soon turned on the Council of Jerusalem. This good man, as night came on.

lit his lamp, and produced his Bible, and we compared notes, he with his Vulgate translation of S. James's word, judico, * I judge ' — I, with my English translation,

* Wherefore my sentence is.' It seemed to him perfectly astonishing, as a mere matter of common sense, that I did not see that the prominent position in the Council was held by S. Peter, and that the expression S. James used was what any member of the Council might use, as they severally gave their judgment on the subject in hand. He closed the Sacred Volume, saying, with the most perfect courtesy, something to the effect that it is an easy matter to twist the Scripture.

There are texts which haunt some minds in their spiritual life. And there are texts, and sometimes one by itself, that return and greet you, in various ways, at the various turns of your life. This text has just been dealt with in the pamphlet to which I have referred, called *A Reason for Distrusting the Rev. Luke Rivington's

* Appeal to the Fathers.' That pamphlet selects a certain passage from my book on * Authority,' in which the passage of Holy Scripture concerning the Council of Jerusalem is dealt with, and its contention is that my words in reference to it, viz., this passage, show the

p. ,. * workings ' of my mind * at a great crisis,' and that at

that crisis I made a great mistake about S. Chrysostom's

belief as to the supremacy of S. Peter, especially as to p. 6. his position at the Council of Jerusalem in relation to

S. James.

In this chapter, therefore, I propose to deal with this

said pamphlet by the author of the * Roman Question ' ;

and, in the course of my remarks on it, with the Council

of Jerusalem itself.

With regard to the writer of the pamphlet I hope to

show (i), that he has misrepresented me, and (2), that he

has misinterpreted S. Chrysostom.

A Personal Matter.

I St. My critic has misrepresented me, — He has quoted a page of my book which is introduced to explain one, and only one thing, as though it explained something else.

I have there stated that I was started on a certain field of inquiry by an incident which occurred in my missionary life in India. I had quoted a passage from the translation of S. Chrysostom in the Pusey Library of the Fathers against a Catholic bishop, and I discovered afterwards that a certain assumption was made in that translation through the insertion of a word not in the original text. The assumption was that a certain pronoun necessarily referred to a particular person ; for the person's name was substituted for the said pronoun without note or comment. This was the gist of my discovery. A sentence also was transposed. My plain contradiction to the said Bishop^is contention was based on the substitution of the name for the pronoun, and this substitution is (no doubt unintentionally) rendered plausible by the transposition of the sentence.

But it was not on this passage that I based my belief as to S. Chrysostom's teaching on S. Peter's primacy. / have never said this. My critic has made it appear (p. 5) as if I did, by adding the last sentence he quotes from me, as though it related to what had gone before, instead of to «Authority that which follows. After relating the incident and the p- ^^• mistake in the Oxford translation, I say * Indeed, &c. ' which marks a transition to something that is coming. In the next sentence, which my critic refuses to quote (although I had drawn his attention to it in correspondence), I say, *I would ask anyone who reads *this letter, seriously to weigh the following account of lo The Council of Jerusalem

* S. Chrysostom's teaching.' There is not a word in my critic about this * following account' Yet it is there that I give my reasons for holding that S. Chrysostom understood S. Peter to act on this, as on all occasions, as the Head of the Church under Christ. It is, then, distinctly unfair to take a portion of my personal narrative only, and to give people to understand, as the writer does on page 9, that I based my teaching as to S. Chrysostom's belief in the supremacy of S. Peter, on this disputed passage. Indeed he goes further; for he says, *Mr.

* Rivington rests his case on a single sentence, not regard- .* ing the context.' Why, I have given the context, when I come to my proof 1 the context including, what my critic deliberately (without rhyme or reason that I can see) excludes, viz. the previous Homily! I know not how to characterise this method of dealing with an author. I particularly asked my readers * seriously to weigh' the account that followed ; and it extends ov^x fourteen pages of careful reasonings in the course of which I deal with the Council of Jerusalem. The worst^of it is, that I had already pointed this out to the writer in a private correspondence, and I have seldom been more surprised in my life than when I read his amazing misstatement of my own argument repeated in a public accusation. Why omit that to which I drew attention as the real proof, and substitute a passage used in controversy with a Roman Catholic Bishop which I was careful to say merely started me on my path of inquiry, but by no means supplied the material for my ultimate conviction ?

I have a right to complain of this. When I say,

* Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to mistake S.

* Chrysostom's belief in the supremacy of S. Peter as

* being identical with the teaching of Rome to-day,' and proceed to say, * I would ask anyone who reads this

* letter, seriously to weigh the following account of S.

The Council of J ertisaiem ir

* Chrysostom's teaching/ it is contran^ to all ruks of justice to take another parenthetical passage, introduced for a different purpose, and, on the strength of that, to endeavour to discredit my appeal to the Fathers. And again, how could the writer have written what he has, If he had carefully marked w^hat I have actually said about the passage with which I shall now proceed to deal ?

For I have nowhere said that the crucial words, ' invested with the chief rule,^ apply to S. Peter. I have observed a certain restraint in deahng w^ith the passage, and have spoken merely of a possibility. What I reprehended was the Oxford translator's settling the question by merely putting * James ' without further ado. Here then I might leave the question— with this simple statement— that my critic is deahng not with my argument, but with his own misrepresentation of it.

2ndly. My critic has misinterpreted S. Ckrysostonu He sets out to prove that at the Council of Jerusalem, S. James held the office of * presiding judge, ^ * having

* there the chief rule/ and that S. Peter (to use his own words) was *in a position of inferiority.* He considers that S. Peter was * primus inter pares ' amongst the Apostles, by divine appointment (p. i6) ; but that his Primacy did not include the Presidency of the Council And this he considers to be involved in what S. Chry SOS torn says in his account of the Council of Jerusalem. In the writer's iranslanon S. Chrysostom says, ' And see, after Peter Paul speaks, and none chides ^ him . J am e s w aits pa ti e nt ly an d do cs not start u p. For he ' {lK£ivoi) had been invested with the chief rule. Nothing