Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

Letters to the Editor. I

Advertising

A New Skin Cure.

Presentation Meeting at Tylorstown.

Advertising

Advertising

The Incorporation of the Rhondda.

"The Church in Wales."

Advertising

An Interesting Personality.

Mid-Rhondda Y.M.C.A.

Advertising

The Incorporation of the Rhondda.

"The Church in Wales."

News
Cite
Share

opinion, but what is established by law." Yet the article in the Parish Magazine stated, We (i.e., Anglicans) are not Protestants." I have asked a clear question, and ought to get a clear answer without being termed ignorant of history simplv because I quote the law of the land. Does Mr. Morris repu- diate the Archbishop's words or not? If he does, what right has he in a Protestant Reformed Church? If he does not, what sense is there in saying that the Church before the Reformation and after the Reformation is, &c., the same Church? Did, then, the Reformation achieve nothing? Really, sir, your correspondent makes me ask with little Peterkin, Now tell us all about the war and what they fought each other for? And he would reply, "That I cannot tell, but 'twas a famous victory! I am well aware what the Anglo- Catholics claim, but I want proofs. Let us subject his claim to the judgment of History. All the historians of note describe the Reformation in England as "a breach with Rome" (Gardiner), breaking the fetters of Rome," a rupture with Rome," revolt from the dominion of Rome (Art. Church of England, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 9). If there was a breach, the continuity is broken. The Pope was the spiritual head of the English Church, or rather, of the Church IN England, but the Act of Supremacy of Elizabeth (given in the Book of Common Prayer) forbade the spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction of the Pope. The Reformers would have scorned the idea of Roman recognition of Anglican Orders. Archbishop Parker, of Elizabeth's day, even denied the Catholicity of the Church of Rome (Gardiner's Student's History," vol. 2, p. 430). The Act of Supremacy makes the plea for recognition absurd, and, indeed, illegal. Further, we know that Church and State were so closely joined that the great Hooker, in Eccles. Polity, Book viii., sect. 2, makes citizenship and Churchmanship identical. To refuse Churchmanship, was to suffer civil dis- ability, and this was incurred by Roman Catholics and Dissenters alike; by the Roman Catholics simply because the Thirty-nine Articles condemned their faith. How, then, can there be con- tinuity between submission to and rejection of Rome? The fact that Rome to this day refuses to recognise Anglican Orders is sufficient proof that there is no such continuity." He cannot expect Rome to deny itself. It is semper iadem, always the same." The claim of the Anglo-Catholics splits on this rock. But let us analyse Mr. Morris a little further. He defines continuity as consisting of five points, and makes a claim for oneness with Rome and her- self at all periods. Neither claim is cor- rect. One of these five points is one sacramental system." Now, Rome has seven sacraments, but Anglicans only two, Baptism and Lord's Supper (Articles xxv.), and rejects Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction as corrupt," &o. Where is this con- tinuity ? Moreover, Rome holds to Transubstantiation. and the Council of Trent curses all who don't; but Anglican Articles condemn it as repugnant to Scripture," and "superstition" (Articles xxviii.). The Sacrifice of Mass is a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit (xxxi.). Where is the continuity now? Your correspondent speaks of evolution, but can he evolve a dangerous deceit and blasphemy into the essentials of faith ? Again, the pre-Reformation Church held to Transubstantiation (Wicliffe was persecuted for protesting against it). The post-Reformation Church condemns it. Therefore, I say, in this respect the Anglican Church is not one with herself at all periods, and Mr. Morris' continuity is broken again. But does he accept the one sacramental system"? Will he answer this question? I should have thought that such an immaculate historical authority would strive to give to historical terms their historical meaning. He says that the Church is Protestant only in the sense that she protests against errors of Rome," &c. In what other sense can she be Protestant? Does he think that anyone expects her to protest against the truths of Rome? How can he expect Rome to recognise his Orders when he professes to deny her integral truths? Then he says, She is not Protestant in the sense that she denies Catholicity," &c. What have the two to do with one another? I also believe in the Holy Catholic Church throughout the world," but his notion of Catholicity" unchurches me. My Church is a "Sect." So is his Church to the Roman. But the Parish Magazine article destroyed all Catholicity in this country before the ninth century, and anywhere previous to the fifth century. The argument was this. Three Creeds make Catholicity. The loss of one makes non-Catholic. Yet the article said the Athanasian Creed was not introduced here till the ninth century. Where, then, was Catholicity in England before that? The Creed itself was not formed before the fifth century. Therefore, there was no Catholic Church until then. A posi- tion which gives such a conclusion is absurd. Oh, but they are Scriptural," they say. So are we. Scripture is the fountain, Creed the stream. As the foun- tain then to the stream, so is our Catholicity to theirs. Ours is the Catholicity of Christ, and all that come to Him are in no wise cast out." Theirs is the muddy stream which would admit Caesar Borgia and the abominable mis- creants who have filled the Papal Chair. Be it so. But when the people realise this, the ramparts of the so-called National Church will fall. That day is coming nearer. Would to God the Church of England would free herself from bondage and stand robed only in the beautv of Christ! He calls us "brethren." I welcome the statement. It's a beam in darkness, let it grow." I reserve my remarks on endowments and tithes till I see his list of tithes owned by Dissenters. Perhaps he would oblige me with a list before next month to save time? I shall have something to say then.—I am, &c., S. B. JOHN. November 16th, 1909.