Apologia pro vita sua being a history of his religious opinions
Church, yet they had the means of grace and the hope of acceptance with
their Maker. The application of all this to the Anglican Church was
immediate;--whether, under the circumstances, a man could assume or
exercise ministerial functions, or not, might not clearly appear (though
it must be remembered that England had the Apostolic Priesthood, whereas
Israel had no priesthood at all), but so far was clear, that there was
no call at all for an Anglican to leave his Church for Rome, though he
did not believe his own to be part of the One Church:--and for this
reason, because it was a fact that the kingdom of Israel was cut off
from the Temple; and yet its subjects, neither in a mass, nor as
individuals, neither the multitudes on Mount Carmel, nor the Shunammite
and her household, had any command given them, though miracles were
displayed before them, to break off from their own people, and to submit
themselves to Judah[10].
[10] As I am not writing controversially, I will only here remark upon
this argument, that there is a great difference between a command, which
presupposes physical, material, and political conditions, and one which
is moral. To go to Jerusalem was a matter of the body, not of the soul.
It is plain, that a theory such as this,--whether the marks of a divine
presence and life in the Anglican Church were sufficient to prove that
she was actually within the covenant, or only sufficient to prove that
she was at least enjoying extraordinary and uncovenanted mercies,--not
only lowered her level in a religious point of view, but weakened her
controversial basis. Its very novelty made it suspicious; and there was
no guarantee that the process of subsidence might not continue, and that
it might not end in a submersion. Indeed, to many minds, to say that
England was wrong was even to say that Rome was right; and no ethical or
casuistic reasoning whatever could overcome in their case the argument
from prescription and authority. To this objection, as made to my new
teaching, I could only answer that I did not make my circumstances. I
fully acknowledged the force and effectiveness of the genuine Anglican
theory, and that it was all but proof against the disputants of Rome;
but still like Achilles, it had a vulnerable point, and that St. Leo had
found it out for me, and that I could not help it;--that, were it not
for matter of fact, the theory would be great indeed; it would be
irresistible, if it were only true. When I became a Catholic, the Editor
of the Christian Observer, Mr. Wilkes, who had in former days accused
me, to my indignation, of tending towards Rome, wrote to me to ask,
which of the two was now right, he or I? I answered him in a letter,
part of which I here insert, as it will serve as a sort of leave-taking
of the great theory, which is so specious to look upon, so difficult to
prove, and so hopeless to work.
"Nov. 8, 1845. I do not think, at all more than I did, that the Anglican
principles which I advocated at the date you mention, lead men to the
Church of Rome. If I must specify what I mean by 'Anglican principles,'
I should say, e.g. taking _Antiquity_, not the _existing Church_, as the
oracle of truth; and holding that the _Apostolical Succession_ is a
sufficient guarantee of Sacramental Grace, _without union with the
Christian Church throughout the world_. I think these still the firmest,
strongest ground against Rome--that is, _if they can be held_" [as
truths or facts.] "They _have_ been held by many, and are far more
difficult to refute in the Roman controversy, than those of any other
religious body.
"For myself, I found _I could not_ hold them. I left them. From the time
I began to suspect their unsoundness, I ceased to put them forward. When
I was fairly sure of their unsoundness, I gave up my Living. When I was
fully confident that the Church of Rome was the only true Church, I
joined her.
"I have felt all along that Bp. Bull's theology was the only theology on
which the English Church could stand. I have felt, that opposition to
the Church of Rome was _part_ of that theology; and that he who could
not protest against the Church of Rome was no true divine in the English
Church. I have never said, nor attempted to say, that any one in office
in the English Church, whether Bishop or incumbent, could be otherwise
than in hostility to the Church of Rome."
* * * * *
The _Via Media_ then disappeared for ever, and a Theory, made expressly
for the occasion, took its place. I was pleased with my new view. I
wrote to an intimate friend, Samuel F. Wood, Dec. 13, 1841: "I think you
will give me the credit, Carissime, of not undervaluing the strength of
the feelings which draw one [to Rome], and yet I am (I trust) quite
clear about my duty to remain where I am; indeed, much clearer than I
was some time since. If it is not presumptuous to say, I have ... a much
more definite view of the promised inward Presence of Christ with us in
the Sacraments now that the outward notes of it are being removed. And I
am content to be with Moses in the desert, or with Elijah excommunicated
from the Temple. I say this, putting things at the strongest."
However, my friends of the moderate Apostolical party, who were my
friends for the very reason of my having been so moderate and Anglican
myself in general tone in times past, who had stood up for Tract 90
partly from faith in me, and certainly from generous and kind feeling,
and had thereby shared an obloquy which was none of theirs, were
naturally surprised and offended at a line of argument, novel, and, as
it appeared to them, wanton, which threw the whole controversy into
confusion, stultified my former principles, and substituted, as they
would consider, a sort of methodistic self-contemplation, especially
abhorrent both to my nature and to my past professions, for the plain
and honest tokens, as they were commonly received, of a divine mission
in the Anglican Church. They could not tell whither I was going; and
were still further annoyed when I persisted in viewing the condemnation
of Tract 90 by the public and the Bishops as so grave a matter, and when
I threw about what they considered mysterious hints of "eventualities,"
and would not simply say, "An Anglican I was born, and an Anglican I
will die." One of my familiar friends, Mr. Church, who was in the
country at Christmas, 1841-2, reported to me the feeling that prevailed
about me; and how I felt towards it will appear in the following letter
of mine, written in answer:--
"Oriel, Dec. 24, 1841. Carissime, you cannot tell how sad your account
of Moberly has made me. His view of the sinfulness of the decrees of
Trent is as much against union of Churches as against individual
conversions. To tell the truth, I never have examined those decrees with
this object, and have no view; but that is very different from having a
deliberate view against them. Could not he say _which_ they are? I
suppose Transubstantiation is one. Charles Marriott, though of course he
would not like to have it repeated[11], does not scruple at that. I have
not my mind clear. Moberly must recollect that Palmer [of Worcester]
thinks they all bear a Catholic interpretation. For myself, this only I
see, that there is indefinitely more in the Fathers against our own
state of alienation from Christendom than against the Tridentine
Decrees.
"The only thing I can think of," [that I can have said of a startling
character,] "is this, that there were persons who, if our Church
committed herself to heresy, _sooner_ than think that there was no
Church any where, would believe the Roman to be the Church; and
therefore would on faith accept what they could not otherwise acquiesce
in. I suppose, it would be no relief to him to insist upon the
circumstance that there is no immediate danger. Individuals can never be
answered for of course; but I should think lightly of that man, who, for
some act of the Bishops, should all at once leave the Church. Now,
considering how the Clergy really are improving, considering that this
row is even making them read the Tracts, is it not possible we may all
be in a better state of mind seven years hence to consider these
matters? and may we not leave them meanwhile to the will of Providence?
I _cannot_ believe this work has been of man; God has a right to His own
work, to do what He will with it. May we not try to leave it in His
hands, and be content?
"If you learn any thing about Barter, which leads you to think that I
can relieve him by a letter, let me know. The truth is this,--our good
friends do not read the Fathers; they assent to us from the common sense
of the case: then, when the Fathers, and we, say _more_ than their
common sense, they are dreadfully shocked.
"The Bishop of London has rejected a man, 1. For holding _any_ Sacrifice
in the Eucharist. 2. The Real Presence. 3. That there is a grace in
Ordination[12].
"Are we quite sure that the Bishops will not be drawing up some
stringent declarations of faith? Is this what Moberly fears? Would the
Bishop of Oxford accept them? If so, I should be driven into the Refuge
for the Destitute [Littlemore]. But I promise Moberly, I would do my
utmost to catch all dangerous persons and clap them into confinement
there."
[11] As things stand now, I do not think he would have objected to his
opinion being generally known.
[12] I cannot prove this at this distance of time; but I do not think it
wrong to introduce here the passage containing it, as I am imputing to
the Bishop nothing which the world would think disgraceful, but, on the
contrary, what a large religious body would approve.
Christmas Bay, 1841. "I have been dreaming of Moberly all night. Should
not he and the like see, that it is unwise, unfair, and impatient to ask
others, What will you do under circumstances, which have not, which may
never come? Why bring fear, suspicion, and disunion into the camp about
things which are merely _in posse_? Natural, and exceedingly kind as
Barter's and another friend's letters were, I think they have done great
harm. I speak most sincerely when I say, that there are things which I
neither contemplate, nor wish to contemplate; but, when I am asked about
them ten times, at length I begin to contemplate them.
"He surely does not mean to say, that _nothing_ could separate a man
from the English Church, e.g. its avowing Socinianism; its holding the
Holy Eucharist in a Socinian sense. Yet, he would say, it was not
_right_ to contemplate such things.
"Again, our case is [diverging] from that of Ken's. To say nothing of
the last miserable century, which has given us to _start_ from a much
lower level and with much less to _spare_ than a Churchman in the 17th
century, questions of _doctrine_ are now coming in; with him, it was a
question of discipline.
"If such dreadful events were realized, I cannot help thinking we should
all be vastly more agreed than we think now. Indeed, is it possible
(humanly speaking) that those, who have so much the same heart, should
widely differ? But let this be considered, as to alternatives. _What_
communion could we join? Could the Scotch or American sanction the
presence of its Bishops and congregations in England, without incurring
the imputation of schism, unless indeed (and is that likely?) they
denounced the English as heretical?
"Is not this a time of strange providences? is it not our safest course,
without looking to consequences, to do simply _what we think right_ day
by day? shall we not be sure to go wrong, if we attempt to trace by
anticipation the course of divine Providence?
"Has not all our misery, as a Church, arisen from people being afraid to
look difficulties in the face? They have palliated acts, when they