Page images
PDF
EPUB

ker occurred through the treachery of General Stone, I would walk from here to Boston to see him hung, and then pray that he might go to purgatory afterward”; and his fierce denunciation received the tremendous applause of a vast audience. There was Psalm cix. in a sentence; but utterly unjustifiable, even with its qualifying “if.” What did any of us know of General Stone's ultimate standing, even if a traitor, before God?

And yet we are inclined to think with Dr. Chambers (Vedder Lectures, 1876), that the opening words of Milton's fine sonnet on the Vaudois are natural and proper:

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones

Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold;" and that Lord Macaulay spake well when he said, in relation to the Sepoy rebellion: “I, who cannot bear to see a beast or a bird in pain, could look on without winking while Nana Sahib onderwent all the tortures of Ravaillac.” What would he have said now as to the unspeakable Turk? Dr. Alexander Duff, the eminent missionary, said: “I could never fully understand how the so-called imprecatory psalms could be consistent with the teachings of the New Testament, until the Sepoy rebellion broke out with such terrific fury, and foes sprung up filling the land with violence; shaking the foundations of society and of government; threatening towns and cities with pillage, fire, and sword; inurdering the innocent and defenceless; persecuting unoffending Christians with especial malignity; inaking unresisting missionaries a sacrifice to brutal lust and deadly torture, and thus rolling back the tide of Christian civilization, that iniquity might come in again like a flood, and heathenism with all its horrors and idolatry once more set up its seats in the land.”

Reverently, and with a deep sense of the infinite distance between his knowledge and ours and between his right and ours, we remember that the compassionate Jesus said, looking into the faces of living men: “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell”!

J. A. DEBAUN. Fonda, New York.

V. THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE. In his preface the writer defines his purpose as fo lows: "The porpose of the volume is not to dim the glory of any church. Its real object, no matter what its apparent aim may seem to be, is to defend the principles of the Reformation relative to church government, to lay bare the grounds of Anglican claims to an bistoric episcopate, to set in clear light once more the validity of Methodist orders, and thus by breaking down some middle walls of partition to contribute something to the tendency toward unity and peace in the church of Jesus Christ.”

In carrying out this worthy purpose, Dr. Cooke has given us an instructive and readable book. He has traversed quite carefully the period of history during which the Anglican Church severed its connection with Rome, and started on its independent career. His object is to show how much foundation there is for the claim that in severing this connection the Anglican Church did not sever the continuity of the historic episcopate. It did not fall within the scope of his purpose to go back of that period to inquire whether or not the line of succession had been preserved intact by the Church of Rome up to the time when the severance took place. Granting that Rome had the apostolic succession when Henry VIII. divorced himself from the papacy that he might divorce himself from Catharine, did the refractory king break the sacred chain that linked the bishops of the Anglican Church with the twelve primitive bishops known as the apostles ? This is quite an interesting question in ecclesiastical surgery. It is to be borne in mind that the operation was performed against the will of the pope, who was losing part of his body, and chloroform had not yet been discovered. It is also to be borne in mind that the burly king was not skilful in the use of the scalpel, and was in no mood to be particularly tender. It should not surprise

1 The Historic Episcopate. A Stndy of Anglican Claims and Methodist Orders. By R. J. Cooke, D. D., Professor of Exegetical and Historical Theology. York: Eaton & Mains. Cincinnati: Curts & Jennings. 1897. 12m0., pp. 224. Cloth, $1.00.

New

Os, therefore, if in severing all other ligaments and tissues, the rough surgeon, dealing with a restless patient, severed this bond also. He was thinking more about Anne Bo'eyn than he was ahout how deep his knife was going, and what havoc he was playing with the delicate little tendons and cartilages that enter into the cellular structure of apostolic succession. There is a very wide and warm difference of opinion as to what Henry and his successors did. That slice of the papacy which they severed from the parent body, and which now constitutes the Angiican Church, insists that while it is entirely independent and enjoys coinplete antonomy of life, yet this subtle tie, this umbilical cord, was never cut. “Had it been cat,” say the Anglicans, “we should have died at once, for no church can live unless linked by the chain of tactual succession throngh its bishops to the apostles.' As they can only prove that they are living by proving that this cord was never cut, they grow very warm over the question of the surgery performed by Henry and his imperious daughter, Elizabeth.

The pope has recently been consulted, and he says, with strong emphasis, that every cord, ligament, and link of every kind was severed; that a broad gap was made between the parent body and the separated part, and that no vital current flows across this gap. What! is the Anglican Church no church? So says the infallible pope. He has held a coroner's inquest over it, and he says it is as dçad as a door nail; that it really has no vital organs, and never bad; that the contamacious king and queen cut it off from all contact with head and heart and lungs, and so it has never had anything but the semblance of life. Such is the verdict also of the Greek Church and other bodies whose vital connection with the apostles has never been disturbed.

Protestant sects are not supposed to be experts in snch matters, and it must be confessed that they are somewhat perplexed and bewildered as they study the question. They are disposed to think there is something seriously wrong with the Anglican Church. It behaves in a manner which is hardly consistent with the supposition that it has fallen lieir to the spiritual heritage of the apostolic church. Its bishops bcar no strong family likeness to the humble fishermen. We cannot conceive of Peter and John as lords spiritual, occupying seats in the highest council of the nation, sitting in judgment on the affairs of Cæsar, and living in a style that rivals the splendor of the haughtiest nobles of the realms. Think of Peter in full canonicals! It would take him a fortnight's hard study to learn the names and uses of all the variegated toggery that goes to make np an Anglican bishop's habit. But the difference between the apostles and Anglican bishops lies deeper than clothes. They differ in their way of estimating persons and things. Peter and Paul and John say: “Look at the doctrine of those who preach to you; see whether they are sound in the faith. If not, though they should be angels from heaver, hold them to be accursed of God. If any one comes to yon, no matter where from, nor with what crendentials, if he does not preach a pure gospel, shut your door against him.” Anglican bishops say: “Look at the ordination of your teacher. If that be regular, defer to bis authority, no matter much what he preaches. But if he be not in the line of succession, however pure his doctrine and devout his spirit, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Apostles and bishops lay stress on different things. The former exalt doctrine; the latter, order. The former glorify truth; the latter, fiction. When the Protestant sects note this strong contrast, they are disposed to side with the pope and say that the tie was broken, and that there is no longer any medium conveying apostolic influence to Anglican bishops. On the other hand, when we look at Rome and note the strong likness that still exists between the Anglican Church and the papacy, we are disposed to take the other side. Surely, the severance could not have been perfect; the operation could pot bave been 'thorongh. Especially does this conclusion seem forced on us when we note the growing likeness. The same life is still in the two bodies. Now, if, as the Anglicans claim, the life is in the historic episcopate, if life depends on the continuous flow of the grace of orders, then Henry and Elizabeth did not entirely check it. That there is soine kind of life in the Anglican Church, Rome denies in vain. Growth implies life; and as the growth brings out even more clearly the likeness of the severed part to the parent body, the presumption is almost a demonstration that the same life exists in both.

If we had to decide this question by an off-band guess, we should say that whatever the papacy has, the Church of England bas, but in an attenuated or emaciated form. If the papacy has the small-pox, the Anglican Church has the varioloid; if the former has scarlet fever, the latter has scarlatina. Perhaps the best way to decide this whole controversy is by an off-hand guess. It is a waste of energy to enter into a serious argument to refute the Anglican claims. Dr. Stuart Robinson used to say that reason can never get anything out of one's head that reason did not put in. Reason played no part in putting apostolic succession into the heads of our Anglican friends. It got in through the door of a disordered fancy. The way to get it out is to work on their hearts.

If, however, any one wishes argument, he will find it, elear and strong, in Dr. Cooke's volume. After a general survey of the doctrine of apostolic succession, he states as a historical fact that the claim to this succession rests upon the validity and sacramıdtal character of Matthew Parker's consecration to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury. “He is the head of the stream. From him the English episcopate is derived." Starting from this premise, he lays it down as his purpose to show—1, That the fact of Parker's consecration is at least doubtful; 2, That if he was consecrated, the consecration, on Anglican principles, was invalid; 3, That if valid it did not continue the apostolical succession; 4, That the Church of England, when established by law in the Reformation, utterly rejected the theories and principles now maintained by high church teachers as the original doctrines of the Church of England.

It is not necessary, and would neither be profitable nor edifying, to follow our author throngh all the process of his arguments, but we may, perhaps, interest the reader by culling out a few points and presenting them to his attention.

1. It is made evid, nt that the dominant power in giving being and shape to the Anglican establishinent was the power on the throne. By the Act of Supremacy, Queen Elizabeth was put in the

« PreviousContinue »