Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

nouncement of the policy of Government upon this much disputed point; and it could not, therefore, in any way have misled them.

There is, however, another argument that Mr. Oakeley brings forward to defend the cause of the extreme Tractarian party. It is couched in the following language:

"Again on the side of the Roman Catholic subscription to the Anglican formularies was the argument from historical probability, not to speak of fac's. There is this plain question which, after all that has been said, remains unanswered, even by those who have answered, and as I think successfully, some other portions of the same argument. Were the Thirty-nine Articles, or were they not, drawn up with a comprehensive intention towards the several religious parties existing at the time? Did the Reformers aim at including none but the Protestants? If otherwise, what Catholics were they whom they sought to satisfy?-Evidently Roman Catholics. I think it may fairly be urged that, if the Articles were not meant to include Roman Catholics, they were not meant to include any but ultra-Protestants; at least no opinions more Catholic than those of Ridley. What, then, becomes of the development of the seventeenth century? Let me not be understood to urge this latter point in any other way than as a consideration on the side of the claim in question."-(Claim, p. 18).

There is more significancy in this argument than, perhaps, Mr. Oakeley is aware of-no little sign indeed of the badness of his cause. His argument upon facts now gives place to arguments on probabilities. What we would ask is-must we follow him there? His supposed facts we have already shown to be no facts at all. We have met his history by history. We have shown that though Roman Catholics were admitted they were not admitted without the surrender of their previous principles; and now we shall not go into an argument upon probabilities. The argument from probabilities is only admissible when facts are not ascertainable. The commonest instance will illustrate this assertion. If it be a fact that Tawell was hanged at Aylesbury, it must be mere fatuity to go into an argument to show that it is improbable that he should have been so hanged, or that it is probable he was not.

Our claimant in stating the case of himself and friends, when pleading for toleration, is pleased to hold out that they could readily find encouragement elsewhere (p. 20.); and he says that it is not impossible that we should drive them into an opposite communion. "If you, (he says) will not let us hold what we forbear to teach" (forbear!-that, surely, is hardly an admissible expression) "you may drive us where we may teach as well as hold. This is no unbecoming menace; it is a plain matter of fact and question of prudence. It is a question however for you, and not for us.' This, if it do not amount to a

menace, is, at all events, strange language. Mr. Oakeley, under the authoritative censure of his Church, talks of going elsewhere if his pretensions be not admitted. The Romish Church might think it expedient to receive him and his party with open arms-nay, even a cardinal's hat may be in readiness for Mr. Oakeley and what then? He will teach as well as hold. Well, be it so; let him teach-that is no great matter, as long as he does not tamper with the Church of England. As for teaching, his mere teaching will do nothing. But as a teacher, authorized or tolerated by the Church of England, he would with his present views do mischief-not from what he might teach, but from what the Church would be supposed to teach through him. We would much rather that he and his party would repent and amend, and should be glad enough to hail his restoration to service upon satisfactory proof of amendment. But, if that be refused-if his party must go on in resistance to the Church-if they must teach, they must teach elsewhere, and will do so without exciting the least sorrow in our hearts. We have no dislike to Mr. Oakeley-no hatred to his party; but, for all that, in a question of this sort, we must be permitted to say we like the Church better. The principles of the Church are more to us than the views of Mr. Oakeley, and we cannot consent to his indoctrination of the Church with his errors. Were his party a thousand times as strong as it is, it would be no loss to the Church were it to go over to Rome to-morrow. We do not wish them to do so, because the renunciation of error is always more satisfactory than its maintenance. But to use Mr. Oakeley's expression-"it is a question for them, and not for us." They can go-they can be spared-they need not fancy we shall miss them.

[ocr errors]

لو

Mr. Oakeley's party are pleased to imagine that there is a great work to be done in England-perhaps not very much less than that of evangelizing it; they are pleased also to think that they are to do it; and how would they do it? What say they for themselves?

"We are sure that the Church of England, as represented in her established and popular system, is unequal to this work, or to any portion of it. But we are not sure, and are loth to believe, that she is incapable of being prepared for it; only we are sure that she cannot accomplish it single-handed, or till an entirely new spirit is poured into her. We believe that as the handmaid of the Church of Rome she could achieve what she can never achieve of herself; and we frankly acknowledge our desire of bringing her into the utmost prac ticable sympathy with the Holy Catholic Church throughout all the world." (Claim, p. 21).

But, alas! such is our blindness, we cannot see that Rome

can do this work, or we ourselves on Roman principles; we cannot see what there is in the system of that Church to lead to a result like this. Will this enlightened party tell us in what the system of Rome is more adapted to this purpose than that of England? Surely our scepticism should be humoured so far as that: they should not attempt to Romanize us without giving reasons. Though they have delighted to go as near to Rome as possible, we need not sympathize with them at once: were it only for delicacy we cannot. We cannot be this to-day, and that to-morrow.

Nor will our avowal of our repugnance to Roman principles necessarily place us in rebellion against the Holy Catholic Church. We do not admit that they which are not of Rome are excluded from the Church Catholic. Rome must show its claim to catholicity before we admit this; and not only to catholicity, but to catholicity in its own sense-that is, universal supremacy. But we shall not admit any argument from the extent of its territory, or its fancied supremacy over nations which tolerate it rather than obey it: we shall admit only arguments founded on its universal applicability, from its consistency with the intentions of Providence, and the purity of its faith and practice. The Catholic Church must be a pure Church, for none other Church could have been intended to be promoted by God; and the only way to arrive at a knowledge of its purity is to test it by the word of God, as delivered to us in the volume of inspiration. We acknowledge and believe One Holy Catholic Church; and of this we trust that we of the Church of England are members. But the Roman Catholic Church is another thing: to it we owe no allegiance, and to it we have ever been, and believe that we ever shall be, diametrically opposed. It is not necessarily the case that the Roman Catholic Church should be the Catholic Church, though it pretends to be so; and we have said sufficient to prove that we do not admit its claims and they who can see a distinction between holding all Roman doctrine, and teaching, though they do not refrain from inculcating principles which shall have the effect of leavening our Church with Romanism, and think it a duty to educate us for what they consider the higher character of Romanists, may be reasonably supposed to be able to see the distinction that we place between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church, though they may not look on that distinction with pleasure. But, in our conscientious conviction of the reality of that distinction, we cannot turn anything but a deaf ear to their entreaties that, in professing the Church of England to be a branch of the Catholic Church, we should allow the manifesta

tion of their earnest Catholic sympathies. Were they speaking of the Catholic Church to which we allude when we speak of ourselves as belonging to it, and which is the only Church that is truly so, we might listen to them with something like patience. But when their open avowal manifests, or the tenor of their language forces us to imply, that they are speaking of the Roman Church under that name, we have nothing whereon we can ground any sympathy with them; but, on the contrary, much of an opposite nature-much, too much, to allow of the admission of their claim. Alas! we must say so, notwithstanding the declaration that "they will gladly bear with affronts, and make the best of the bad company in which they find themselves, if the Church will but let them have their hearts' desire, which is, not to live on smiles and participate of bounties, but to wait on the Church in all fidelity, though with crumbs for their portion and buffetings for their reward." (p. 22).

The decision of the Court of Arches ought to convince Mr. Oakeley, if nothing else will, that entreaties of this sort are perfectly useless. Will he permit us to say that he should have known that the Church could not grant such a request? Or shall we be wrong in saying that he knew it could answer no other purpose than that of a rhetorical flourish? The Church of England allow Mr. Oakeley and his friends the enjoyment of their wishes! Why!the thing is preposterous! The Church of England cannot allow them their claim, upon any terms, without the surrender of her existence.

[ocr errors]

To permit them "to hold," "to leaven," and "to educate," would amount to a dispensation in their favour as against the Articles, Canons, and Constitutions of the Church; and the vigorous use they would make of it would soon convince us that it was too late to talk of Rome and England, as comprising opposite communions, when we should be called upon “TO DIS

CERN AND APPRECIATE THE PLAIN MARKS OF DIVINE WISDOM AND AUTHORITY IN THE ROMAN CHURCH, TO REPENT IN SORROW AND BITTERNESS OF HEART OUR GREAT SIN IN DESERTING HER COMMUNION, AND TO SUE HUMBLY AT HER FEET FOR PARDON AND RESTORATION.”*

Various causes have hitherto contributed to the sustentation of the party of which Mr. Oakeley has lately been the mouthpiece. We regret it not. It has but served to develope their intentions. A short time ago, no one would have believed that they wished to go as near Rome as possible. Now it is proved

* Ward's Ideal, p. 473.

beyond doubt; and the irrefragable proof of that desire has driven events into such a course, both at Oxford and London, that we may rest assured there will be no surrender—even though the claim to hold be urged upon the Church again and again, and in a more specious form, than it has taken under the hands of Mr. Oakeley. The flame that was lit up in England by the martrys of the Reformation has not yet been extinguished, and with them we trust "it shall NEVER BE."

ART. IVA Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language. By ISAAC NORDHEIMER, Phil. Doct., Professor of Arabic and other Oriental Languages in the University of the City of New York. Two vols. London: Wiley and Putnam.

THE study of Hebrew literature has been making a silent but sure progress for some years past. The names of many writers upon the continent, of the profoundest knowledge and highest order of intellect, who have devoted their lives to this study, are now familiarly known in England; though their labours are not yet appreciated beyond a limited circle. We cannot, however, but hope that the time is approaching when that early and systematic attention will be given to Hebrew literature amongst ourselves, without which subsequent endeavours to master it in after life too often prove abortive. Men who have not failed in mature age to acquire modern languages have often given up hopelessly this study. The old popular errors may in some measure account for this. Grammars were published of such moderate dimensions and boasting titles as to flatter the student (as they did ourselves twenty years ago) that a language, of which the grammar might be comprised in fifty or sixty pages, could not be difficult of attainment. Under this delusion, they have commenced the study of it, have pursued it to a certain point, become puzzled by difficulties of which their grammar gave no warning, and have relinquished it in despair. The truth is, no student should sit down to the study of Hebrew but under the impression, that whatever powers of mind were taxed to make him a sound Greek scholar are requisite to make him a sound Hebrew scholar. We are not now talking of superficial knowledge that easily acquired knowledge which will enable a Hamiltonian reader to construe a psalm in Hebrew, almost as soon and as easily as in Italian or German. Such knowledge of a dead language as this is but a delusive possession. A reader may get on very well with a living language without a

« AnteriorContinuar »