And now, that our discussions on what may fitly be called the Prophetical Office of the Church draw to a close, the thought, with which perhaps we entered on the subject is not unlikely to recur, when the excitement of the inquiry has subsided, and weariness has succeeded, that what has been said is but a dream, the wanton exercise, rather than the practical conclusion of the intellect. Such is the feeling of minds unversed in the disappointments of the world, incredulous how much it has of promise, how little of substance; what intricacy and confusion beset the most certain truths; how much must be taken on trust, in order to be possessed; how little can be realized except by an effort of the will; how great a part of enjoyment lies in resignation. Without some portion of that Divine Philosophy which bids us consider “the kingdom of God” to be “within us,” and which, by prayer and meditation, by acting on what is told us, and by anticipating sight, developes outwardly its own views and principles, and thus assimilates to itself all that is around us,—not only the Church in this age and country, but the Church Catholic anywhere, or at any time, Primitive, Roman, or Reformed, is but a name, used indeed as the incentive to action, but without local habitation, or visible tokens, “here or there,” “in the secret chambers,” or “in the desert.” After all, the Church is ever invisible in its day, and faith only apprehends it 1.
Under this feeling I proceed, lastly, to consider more attentively this main difficulty in the Anglo-Catholic system; and in so doing shall have opportunity to justify, by examples, the doctrine which has just been suggested, by way of reconciling the mind to it.
2.
The most plausible objection, then, urged by the partisans of Rome against the English Church, is, that we are what they call a Parliamentary Church, a State Creation or Establishment, depending on the breath of princes or of populace, and directed towards mere political ends, such as the temporal well-being of the community, or the stability of the Constitution; whereas the True Church is built upon the One Faith, transmitted through successive generations, and simply maintains what it has so received, leaving temporal benefits to come and go, to follow or be suspended, as the case may be. The argument comes with the greater force, because Protestants have not unfrequently granted the fact, and only denied its importance. Yet we need not fear to contest the fact itself in spite both of our Roman and our Protestant opponents; and in order to show how little it can be maintained, I will take pains to state it as strongly as I can, before I proceed to reply to it.
3.
It is objected, then, that the Church is by office, and in her very definition, “the pillar and ground of the Truth,” that “God’s Spirit which is upon her, and His words which He has put in her mouth, shall not depart out of her mouth, nor out of the mouth of her seed, nor out of the mouth of her seed’s seed, from henceforth and for ever;” that “all her children are taught of the Lord, and great is the peace of her children.” In such texts the Faith committed to the Church is represented, not as a secret and difficult doctrine, but as clearly proclaimed, indefectibly maintained, and universally acknowledged. Whatever errors and corruptions there may be in the Church and in her children, so far, it may be argued, is clear, that the true Faith, the one way to heaven, the one message from the Saviour of sinners, the Revelation of the Gospel, will be plain and unequivocal, as the sun in the heavens, from first to last; so that whoever goes wrong within her pale, will have himself to blame wholly, not his defective light. In the English Church, however, we shall hardly find ten or twenty neighbouring clergymen who agree together; and that, not in the non-essentials of religion, but as to what are its elementary and necessary doctrines; or even as to the fact whether there are any necessary doctrines at all, any distinct and definite faith required for salvation. Much less do the laity receive that instruction in one and the same doctrine, which is a necessary characteristic, as may be fairly alleged, of their being “taught of the Lord.” They wander about like sheep without a shepherd, they do not know what to believe, and are thrown on their own private judgment, weak and inadequate as it is, merely because they do not know whither to betake themselves for guidance. If they go to one Church they hear one doctrine, in the next they enter into they hear another: if they try to unite the two, they are obliged to drop important elements in each, and thus dilute and attenuate the Faith to a mere shadow; if they shrink, as they may naturally do, from both the one doctrine and the other, they are taught to be critical, sceptical, and self-wise: and thus they are sure to be led into heterodoxy in one form or other, over and above the evil whether of arrogance or indifference in themselves. If, again, they are blessed with teachable and gentle minds, such uncertainty makes them desponding and unhappy; they walk in darkness and disquiet, far removed from that “peace” which the Prophet describes as resulting from the “teaching” which the children of the True Church receive.