Apologia pro vita sua being a history of his religious opinions
Church theory erected on a definite basis. This took me to the great
Anglican divines; and then of course I found at once that it was
impossible to form any such theory, without cutting across the teaching
of the Church of Rome. Thus came in the Roman controversy.
When I first turned myself to it, I had neither doubt on the subject,
nor suspicion that doubt would ever come upon me. It was in this state
of mind that I began to read up Bellarmine on the one hand, and
numberless Anglican writers on the other. But I soon found, as others
had found before me, that it was a tangled and manifold controversy,
difficult to master, more difficult to put out of hand with neatness and
precision. It was easy to make points, not easy to sum up and settle. It
was not easy to find a clear issue for the dispute, and still less by a
logical process to decide it in favour of Anglicanism. This difficulty,
however, had no tendency whatever to harass or perplex me: it was a
matter which bore not on convictions, but on proofs.
First I saw, as all see who study the subject, that a broad distinction
had to be drawn between the actual state of belief and of usage in the
countries which were in communion with the Roman Church, and her formal
dogmas; the latter did not cover the former. Sensible pain, for
instance, is not implied in the Tridentine decree upon Purgatory; but it
was the tradition of the Latin Church, and I had seen the pictures of
souls in flames in the streets of Naples. Bishop Lloyd had brought this
distinction out strongly in an Article in the British Critic in 1825;
indeed, it was one of the most common objections made to the Church of
Rome, that she dared not commit herself by formal decree, to what
nevertheless she sanctioned and allowed. Accordingly, in my Prophetical
Office, I view as simply separate ideas, Rome quiescent, and Rome in
action. I contrasted her creed on the one hand, with her ordinary
teaching, her controversial tone, her political and social bearing, and
her popular beliefs and practices, on the other.
While I made this distinction between the decrees and the traditions of
Rome, I drew a parallel distinction between Anglicanism quiescent, and
Anglicanism in action. In its formal creed Anglicanism was not at a
great distance from Rome: far otherwise, when viewed in its insular
spirit, the traditions of its establishment, its historical
characteristics, its controversial rancour, and its private judgment. I
disavowed and condemned those excesses, and called them "Protestantism"
or "Ultra-Protestantism:" I wished to find a parallel disclaimer, on the
part of Roman controversialists, of that popular system of beliefs and
usages in their own Church, which I called "Popery." When that hope was
a dream, I saw that the controversy lay between the book-theology of
Anglicanism on the one side, and the living system of what I called
Roman corruption on the other. I could not get further than this; with
this result I was forced to content myself.
These then were the _parties_ in the controversy:--the Anglican _Via
Media_ and the popular religion of Rome. And next, as to the _issue_, to
which the controversy between them was to be brought, it was this:--the
Anglican disputant took his stand upon Antiquity or Apostolicity, the
Roman upon Catholicity. The Anglican said to the Roman: "There is but
One Faith, the Ancient, and you have not kept to it;" the Roman
retorted: "There is but One Church, the Catholic, and you are out of
it." The Anglican urged "Your special beliefs, practices, modes of
action, are nowhere in Antiquity;" the Roman objected: "You do not
communicate with any one Church besides your own and its offshoots, and
you have discarded principles, doctrines, sacraments, and usages, which
are and ever have been received in the East and the West." The true
Church, as defined in the Creeds, was both Catholic and Apostolic; now,
as I viewed the controversy in which I was engaged, England and Rome had
divided these notes or prerogatives between them: the cause lay thus,
Apostolicity _versus_ Catholicity.
However, in thus stating the matter, of course I do not wish it supposed
that I allowed the note of Catholicity really to belong to Rome, to the
disparagement of the Anglican Church; but I considered that the special
point or plea of Rome in the controversy was Catholicity, as the
Anglican plea was Antiquity. Of course I contended that the Roman idea
of Catholicity was not ancient and apostolic. It was in my judgment at
the utmost only natural, becoming, expedient, that the whole of
Christendom should be united in one visible body; while such a unity
might, on the other hand, be nothing more than a mere heartless and
political combination. For myself, I held with the Anglican divines,
that, in the Primitive Church, there was a very real mutual independence
between its separate parts, though, from a dictate of charity, there was
in fact a close union between them. I considered that each See and
Diocese might be compared to a crystal, and that each was similar to the
rest, and that the sum total of them all was only a collection of
crystals. The unity of the Church lay, not in its being a polity, but in
its being a family, a race, coming down by apostolical descent from its
first founders and bishops. And I considered this truth brought out,
beyond the possibility of dispute, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, in
which the Bishop is represented as the one supreme authority in the
Church, that is, in his own place, with no one above him, except as, for
the sake of ecclesiastical order and expedience, arrangements had been
made by which one was put over or under another. So much for our own
claim to Catholicity, which was so perversely appropriated by our
opponents to themselves:--on the other hand, as to our special strong
point, Antiquity, while, of course, by means of it, we were able to
condemn most emphatically the novel claim of Rome to domineer over other
Churches, which were in truth her equals, further than that, we thereby
especially convicted her of the intolerable offence of having added to
the Faith. This was the critical head of accusation urged against her by
the Anglican disputant; and as he referred to St. Ignatius in proof that
he himself was a true Catholic, in spite of being separated from Rome,
so he triumphantly referred to the Treatise of Vincentius of Lerins upon
the "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," in proof that the
controversialists of Rome, in spite of their possession of the Catholic
name, were separated in their creed from the Apostolical and primitive
faith.
Of course those controversialists had their own mode of answering him,
with which I am not concerned in this place; here I am only concerned
with the issue itself, between the one party and the other--Antiquity
_versus_ Catholicity.
Now I will proceed to illustrate what I have been saying of the _status_
of the controversy, as it presented itself to my mind, by extracts from
my writings of the dates of 1836, 1840, and 1841. And I introduce them
with a remark, which especially applies to the paper, from which I shall
quote first, of the date of 1836. That paper appeared in the March and
April numbers of the British Magazine of that year, and was entitled
"Home Thoughts Abroad." Now it will be found, that, in the discussion
which it contains, as in various other writings of mine, when I was in
the Anglican Church, the argument in behalf of Rome is stated with
considerable perspicuity and force. And at the time my friends and
supporters cried out, "How imprudent!" and, both at the time, and
especially at a later date, my enemies have cried out, "How insidious!"
Friends and foes virtually agreed in their criticism; I had set out the
cause which I was combating to the best advantage: this was an offence;
it might be from imprudence, it might be with a traitorous design. It
was from neither the one nor the other; but for the following reasons.
First, I had a great impatience, whatever was the subject, of not
bringing out the whole of it, as clearly as I could; next I wished to be
as fair to my adversaries as possible; and thirdly I thought that there
was a great deal of shallowness among our own friends, and that they
undervalued the strength of the argument in behalf of Rome, and that
they ought to be roused to a more exact apprehension of the position of
the controversy. At a later date, (1841,) when I really felt the force
of the Roman side of the question myself, as a difficulty which had to
be met, I had a fourth reason for such frankness in argument, and that
was, because a number of persons were unsettled far more than I was, as
to the Catholicity of the Anglican Church. It was quite plain that,
unless I was perfectly candid in stating what could be said against it,
there was no chance that any representations, which I felt to be in its
favour, or at least to be adverse to Rome, would have had any success
with the persons in question.
At all times I had a deep conviction, to put the matter on the lowest
ground, that "honesty was the best policy." Accordingly, in July 1841, I
expressed myself thus on the Anglican difficulty: "This is an objection
which we must honestly say is deeply felt by many people, and not
inconsiderable ones; and the more it is openly avowed to be a
difficulty, the better; for there is then the chance of its being
acknowledged, and in the course of time obviated, as far as may be, by
those who have the power. Flagrant evils cure themselves by being
flagrant; and we are sanguine that the time is come when so great an
evil as this is, cannot stand its ground against the good feeling and
common sense of religious persons. It is the very strength of Romanism
against us; and, unless the proper persons take it into their serious
consideration, they may look for certain to undergo the loss, as time
goes on, of some whom they would least like to be lost to our Church."
The measure which I had especially in view in this passage, was the
project of a Jerusalem Bishopric, which the then Archbishop of
Canterbury was at that time concocting with M. Bunsen, and of which I
shall speak more in the sequel. And now to return to the Home Thoughts
Abroad of the spring of 1836:--
The discussion contained in this composition runs in the form of a
dialogue. One of the disputants says: "You say to me that the Church of
Rome is corrupt. What then? to cut off a limb is a strange way of saving
it from the influence of some constitutional ailment. Indigestion may
cause cramp in the extremities; yet we spare our poor feet
notwithstanding. Surely there is such a religious _fact_ as the
existence of a great Catholic body, union with which is a Christian
privilege and duty. Now, we English are separate from it."
The other answers: "The present is an unsatisfactory, miserable state of
things, yet I can grant no more. The Church is founded on a
doctrine,--on the gospel of Truth; it is a means to an end. Perish the
Church, (though, blessed be the promise! this cannot be,) yet let it
perish _rather_ than the Truth should fail. Purity of faith is more
precious to the Christian than unity itself. If Rome has erred
grievously in doctrine, then it is a duty to separate even from Rome."
His friend, who takes the Roman side of the argument, refers to the
image of the Vine and its branches, which is found, I think, in St.
Cyprian, as if a branch cut from the Catholic Vine must necessarily die.
Also he quotes a passage from St. Augustine in controversy with the
Donatists to the same effect; viz. that, as being separated from the
body of the Church, they were _ipso facto_ cut off from the heritage of
Christ. And he quotes St. Cyril's argument drawn from the very title