Chapter IV. The Extreme Party

WE have seen how the " historic High Church " party with its appeal to the " Primitive Church," gave birth, by force of logical necessity, to that party among the Ritualists who hoped to find in an appeal to the Prayer Book an approximation to that Living Voice of which so crying a need became apparent. We pass on now to the further development of Ritualism among those who have actually found a Voice which seems at first sight to satisfy that need. In matters of doc trine in se, they do not differ greatly from their more moderate brethren. They are, usually, a little more emphatic and outspoken; they practise, or wish to practise, such devotions as spring directly from the doctrines they hold — such devotions as Benediction and the Rosary — a few of them, though negligible in number, profess even to hold the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, and to receive— (with the exception of the necessity of external submission to and communion with him) — all doctrines defined and taught by him. Yet, in the main, they do not differ in doc trinal matters very much from those who have already been discussed. It is in their fundamental position, in the living authority to which they profess allegiance, that the difference lies. For they have seen plainly the weakness of any attempt to make written docu ments serve the purpose of a Living Voice; and they have seen too the impossibility of finding in their own bishops or Synods — still less, of course, in any State tribunal — an authority which will bring them into line with the rest of Christendom. They have found therefore something resembling a Living Voice, apart from all these, and to this, it must be said, they do indeed give the most unqualified submission. It is not possible then to bring against them the charge of mere individualism and Private Judgment; and their position, save for one fatal flaw that will be indicated presently, is, theoretically, perfectly reasonable.

I. They begin by the premise that the Church of England is not, or at any rate ought not to be, in any sense a separate entity. They deplore her apparent isolation from the rest of Christendom, assuming that once it was not so, and tracing all her misfortunes and divisions to the unhappy incident known as the Reformation. They lament, as much as any Catholics lament, the destruction of the Religious Houses, the abolishing of the old formularies, and the separation of Englishmen from the obedience of Rome. It may be asked then, very reasonably, why they do not return, as individuals, to that obedience; and their answer is at any rate chivalrous and gallant. The Church of England, they say, in spite of appearances, has retained all things absolutely necessary for Catholic life: she has retained the Sacred Ministry, the Sacraments and the Creeds; Communion with the Roman Pontiff, though of the bene esse of the Church is not of its esse: it is de jure ecdesiastico, not de jure divino? that he reigns. They quote in proof of this the Sacramental life of the Eastern separated Churches. Since then this is so — as assumed — it is plainly by Divine permission that the separation took place; and it would therefore appear to be part of the Divine Plan that England should for a time (in view of the strain on Catholic loyalty in the sixteenth century) have as a spiritual guide a Church which, though externally separated from the rest of Christendom, retained sufficient of the means of grace to sanctify her children and sustain in them the supernatural life; that this arrangement is, however, merely a temporary makeshift; and that the efforts of all " Catholic-minded " persons must be directed towards retaining the confidence of England on the one side and of healing the breach with Rome on the other. There can be no ultimate peace or security, they say, until that breach is healed; but, meanwhile, individual conversions hinder rather than help that Corporate Reunion which in God's time will come about.

Where then speaks that Living Voice to which, as has been said, they pay deference and which permits them, temporarily, to remain in that unhappy state of isolation? It is not in Canterbury, since Canterbury repudiates the theory so far as Canterbury utters any

1 A very few extremists admit even the " divine right " of the Pope. Recently a considerable number of these in America made their submission to him.

voice on the matter: neither is it in Rome, since Rome reckons Catholicism to be coincident with her own borders. To understand the answer we must return a little.

It is assumed as a matter of course that those Chris-tain bodies which have retained a valid ministry, the use of the Sacraments and the old Catholic Creeds together make up Catholic Christendom. It is assumed secondly that Canterbury has retained these essentials l; Canterbury, therefore, is " part " of the Catholic Church. The Church of England is occasionally spoken of by Ritualists as a "Branch" — occasionally (and more recently) as consisting of two Provinces — Canterbury and York — with Provincial rights and powers, but no more than Provincial. The phraseology is different; but the effect is very nearly the same.

Now the rest of the Catholic Church, according to this argument, is made up of Rome on the one side and of those Eastern Churches on the other which have retained the above-mentioned essentials of Catholicity. [It is a matter of dispute, to some extent, among the Ritualists, as to how far heresy disqualifies a body which in other matters is " Catholic " (e.g. The Copts in Egypt, who are, at least in their past history and their present formularies, deeply tainted with Eutychianism). Yet this makes no great difference to the argument, and can be waived for the present.]

question of Anglican Orders is too intricate to be discussed here. It is enough to remark that the Ritualist Clergy believe themselves to be in all respects validly ordained priests. As regards "jurisdiction " various theories prevail; but all are agreed that they possess it, if it exists.

All these bodies then, added together, constitute the Church of Christ; and none of them singly can claim ecumenical authority. The Voice therefore of the " Church " to-day is to be heard speaking in the mutual consent of these bodies, explicitly and intelligibly in an ecumenical Council, should such ever beheld; but implicitly and sufficiently intelligibly, in their silent agreement. Where then these bodies are agreed, either explicitly, or by silence, that is the revealed Faith of Christendom; where these bodies differ among themselves, there are matters of private opinion.

An illustration or two may perhaps help to elucidate this position which, though a little difficult of statement, yet holds together perfectly intelligibly up to a certain point after a little consideration, and is, indeed, the basis of the religion of many devoted men and admirable scholars in the Church of England to-day.

Let us take for example the doctrine of the Real Presence — even of Transubstantiation.

Rome and the East teach it unfalteringly: Canter bury at least does not exclude it (if the Article on the subject is treated in the manner described in the last chapter). The Real Objective Presence then of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the altar is de fide; and in the opinion of some, Transubstantiation is de fide also. It does not matter if nine out of ten Anglicans, and even all the bishops of the Church of England deny it; it is of course sad if this is the case, but no more sad than the state of affairs in the fourth century when hundreds of undoubted bishops with many of their flocks were tainted with Arianism. The true " Catholic " looks not to this bishop or that, but to the witness of the Church as a whole; and it is beyond question, says the Ritualist, what this witness is, with regard to the Real Presence, as also to other such doc trines as the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of Penance, our Lady's place in the Divine Economy, the Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, and all the rest. Since all these things are taught by (what we may call for brevity's sake) Moscow and Rome, and are not absolutely excluded by Canterbury, these things are part of the deposit of faith, and must be believed by all faithful "Catholics".

When we come however to such matters as the In fallibility of the Roman Pontiff, Indulgences, and the presence or the absence of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, we find ourselves on different ground. Here, the Ritualist says, there is not the same consensus of opinion, since Moscow and Canterbury do not teach or even permit to be taught what is defined by Rome on these matters. It does not follow that these doctrines are untrue; but only that they belong to the realm of speculative rather than dogmatic theo logy, and are therefore not de fide. They do not, that is to say, come to Christians with the authority of the Living Voice behind them— not, that is, with the unanimous consent expressed or unexpressed, of those bodies that, retaining the essentials of Catholicity, constitute altogether the infallible Church of Christ.1

JAs a matter of fact, though illogically, nearly all the extreme Ritualists do hold the Filioque clause as defide.

2. It follows, then, that many of these Ritualists are contemptuous, and even bitterly contemptuous of the Church of England as at present existing, declaring that they owe to her, as an authority, no spiritual deference at all, considering the terrible manner in which ' she has allowed herself to be Protestantized. She has retained, they believe, the bare essentials of Catholicity, by God's Providence; and she has preserved jurisdiction in England by the canonical succession of her bishops; "Catholics" therefore are bound, they believe, to be in communion with her, within the limits in which she has jurisdiction, to receive the Sacra ments from her ministers and from none other, and to "hear Mass" in her buildings. But as a Christian teaching body she is almost beneath contempt, and well-informed " Catholics " who are her children are in a parallel position to that of Catholics of 1500 years ago who lived in the midst of an Arian community.

It is necessary, therefore, to understand the theory on which the extreme Ritualist position is based, if Catholic critics are to avoid dismissing Ritualists as merely insubordinate individualists.

Other points also flow from this position: —

(i) On the matter of jurisdiction the Ritualist, so far as he considers it at all (and is logical), is forced back upon a very mechanical view. Since he does not be lieve that jurisdiction flows from the Roman Pontiff — at least not de jure divino — he is compelled to believe that it is inherent in each "canonically appointed" bishop within his own diocese. Yet he does not carry the theory so far as to believe that a bishop who denounces and repudiates sacramental absolution, in any sense withdraws implicitly the denied jurisdiction of his clergy; for jurisdiction, he thinks, is also conferred upon every clergyman in virtue of his ordination. He may hear confessions then, at least within the limits of his own parish, and, until recently, it was taken for granted that he might hear them anywhere. (Such is the most usual of the Ritualist theories of jurisdiction.)

(2) Since then jurisdiction is conferred upon Anglican bishops by virtue of their canonical appointment, not only are "Catholics" bound to be in communion with them in England, but it becomes a grave sin for them to frequent the services of the " Italian Mission ". Yet on the Continent, where "Roman Catholic" bishops have jurisdiction, exactly the opposite is the result. There the "English Catholic" commits the sin of schism by attending churches or chapels of his own de nomination (since these are as " schismatic " in France as are " Roman Catholic " churches in England). The theory is pushed so far by the Ritualists, that the laity are occasionally told by their clergy that they are within their rights on the Continent if they approach Catholic altars, and that they are justified, since they are really Catholics, in seeking absolution from Catholic priests, and concealing the fact that they are Anglicans. Few, however, fortunately, are so logical as this, and many, who in other respects are convinced Ritualists, are even more reasonable again. These latter, perceiving the disorganized state of Christendom (as they under stand it), declare boldly that the old mechanical idea of jurisdiction no longer holds, and frequent in England Catholic services with as much serenity as they frequent Anglican services elsewhere.

3. Now before passing on to consider a few obvious remarks to be made upon this Ritualist theory as a whole, it may be as well to comment upon one or two further difficulties which, as much as anything, render it hard for the Ritualist to relinquish his position.

(1) The undoubted revival of sacramental teaching in the Church of England during the past fifty years is to his mind a very strong argument indeed as to his "Catholicity". Here, he says, are plainly enough signs that the sacramental life of Anglicanism has re mained within her borders in spite of appearances to the contrary. In face of the terrible decadence and lethargy that prevailed for so long, it is all the more remarkable that such a revival was possible at all. There are now thousands of persons who live and die in the Anglican Communion, relying entirely upon her sacra ments, and finding in them both comfort and help. How terrible then, he says, is the responsibility of one who would leave a Communion in which God has shown so many evidences of His Presence and Power.1

(2) If then this is a serious consideration for the lay man, how much more so for a " priest "; since, if he submits to the Roman Pontiff unconditionally, he must, if he wishes to minister as a priest, be unconditionally

1 A further sign, he thinks, of her spiritual position, is to be found in the remarkable revival of the Religious Life within her borders, for both men and women, within the last fifty years.

ordained. And can he so give the lie to all his previous spiritual experiences, as to deny that that grace was real of which his whole conviction assures him, and in whose strength he has lived so long? How is it possible that so many confessedly good and learned men could have been deceived so long on so vital a matter?

The answer to these two objections is not very easy to state. Briefly, however, it would seem as if it lay best along the following lines.

Catholics do not deny — in fact they welcome cordially — the evidences of spiritual life as revived recently within the Church of England. They believe, in fact, so far as they have studied it, that this revival is designed by the Providence of God in order that England may be gradually re-inured to Catholic doctrine, and re-united to the Roman See. They even welcome the fact that this revival has taken place along sacramental lines.

But this does not in the least involve the validity of the sacraments. For Anglican sacraments, on the Catholic estimate, are at any rate honest attempts at fulfilling the institution of Christ, and, further, offer vivid and pointed opportunities for real " acts " towards God. The Anglican penitent, on whom rests no com. pulsion to approach the tribunal of penitence, must, to begin with, have a generous disposition towards his Saviour, and, further, in the act of confession meets with an excellent occasion for eliciting from himself a real act of contrition. The sense of reconciliation then that he feels, is in no way an illusion; it may very well be that times and again he has received, through his own act, exactly that which he sought— pardon and grace. Precisely the same argument holds with regard to Communion. Although that which he receives is mere bread and wine taken in remembrance of Christ's Passion, yet the reception is to him an opportunity of spiritual communion, all the more likely to be grasped owing to his subjective conviction as to the validity of the act. The convert therefore is not obliged to deny any spiritual experience undergone as an Anglican; but only, in submission to the Church on a purely theological point, to confess himself mistaken as to the mode in which that experience pre sented itself and the particular character (not the fact) of the grace received.

As to the point raised with regard to the impossibility of those confessedly learned and good men being mistaken as to their own priesthood; it may be as well to point out that the argument cuts both ways: since there have been and still are thousands of equally good and learned men who being, on the Anglican contention, true " Catholic priests " are utterly unaware of it, and, indeed, strenuously deny it. If it is hard to believe that a mere pious " minister " may mistakenly think himself a priest; it is at least as hard to believe that a pious "priest" can think himself a mere "minister". If it is hard to think that the contents of the Anglican chalice consist merely of wine, though in hundreds of churches it is treated as the Precious Blood; it is far harder to think that that which in reality would be the Precious Blood if Anglican Orders were valid, could be treated as mere wine for nearly three centuries by practically all Anglican clergy, and by the majority even up to the present day.

4. It is necessary to pass on now to a consideration of the extreme Ritualist position as a whole, and to indicate the one fatal flaw that runs through it from top to bottom.

First, however, it may be as well to remember that a principal prima facie argument lies against it in the fact that until the last twenty or thirty years the position was never dreamed of. It is impossible, so far as I am aware, to find a single Reformation or Caroline divine who ever even hinted at the position, or a single Oxford leader who suggested it. This is not, of course, a final argument against its truth: it is theoretically conceivable that a small recently created section in the Church of England is right, and all the rest wrong.

Secondly, it is worth observing how exceedingly difficult a theory it is to put into practice. If it were really true that the agreement of Moscow, Canterbury and Rome constituted the Living Voice of Christ's Church, how is it that this Living Voice must be so often interpreted by its silences? For it is impossible to say that Canterbury " speaks " the Catholic doctrine concerning the Real Presence, or Penance, or the pre rogatives of Mary; the utmost that can be said is that she does not, beyond all question, explicitly deny these things; since she permits (though under protest) a few of her more recent ministers to teach them. What kind of Living Voice is that which only thus can utter itself? The only possible explanation — which is indeed the Ritualist explanation — is that for all that it does just speak sufficiently; and that its in coherences are the necessary result of that unhappy external disunion of Christendom which all true "Catholics" equally deplore.

The supreme flaw, however, which invalidates the entire position is as follows. (It is admirably drawn out at length in W. H. Mallock's "Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption ".)

All the doctrines held by Ritualists rest, ex hypothesi, upon the doctrine that Moscow, Rome and Canter bury together constitute the Church of Christ (exactly as in a parallel sense all the doctrines held by Catholics rest upon the doctrine that the Roman Church is the Church of Christ). The Ritualists, that is, believe in the Real Presence and in Penance, not because they are evidently deducible from Scripture (not, that is, for merely individualistic or Protestant reasons); nor from the testimony of the " Primitive " Church; nor from the witness of the Book of Common Prayer: for all these various positions are seen by the Ritualists to be as untenable as they are seen to be by Catholics. But all, for them, rests upon the assumption that the consent (under the conditions we have seen) of Rome, Moscow and Canterbury constitutes the Living Voice and that these three Communions constitute the Church of Christ. This is the fundamental assumption — the fundamental doctrine of their view of Catholicism.

Yet, when Rome, Moscow and Canterbury are sever ally, or unitedly, asked whether they accept this position assigned to them in the Mystical Body, each and all repudiate it. Hence, the whole of the professed infallible teaching of these three bodies in common, rests upon an equally infallible teaching emanating from these three bodies that they do not in common constitute the Church of Christ and therefore are not infallible. It is, therefore, not a vicious circle of reasoning, but actually a self-contradictory one. (It can only mildly be paralleled by the ancient dilemma subsequent upon a man's stating that he " never speaks the truth".)

There appears at first glance to be perhaps one loophole of escape. Is it a fact, says the Ritualist, that Canterbury repudiates this theory of Catholicism? Certainly Rome does, for Rome claims to be the entire Church; as does also Moscow so far as her claim is intelligible by Western minds. But is there not a loophole left in Canterbury? The answer is, of course, obvious. Even if it can be shown (which as a matter of fact it cannot) that Canterbury teaches this theory of Catholicism — even then, since Rome and Moscow do not agree with her, it is ex hypothesi no more than a speculative opinion. How then is it possible to base doctrine professedly infallible upon a doctrine professedly doubtful?

Such then is the Ritualist theory — as represented by the extreme school — when examined simply on its own intrinsic contents. Many of the party in question, no doubt, never think out their theory into its component elements; they are content to take for granted a vague " Catholic " authority, represented for them chiefly by Rome (except in certain points) and to supply the necessary suggestion of a "Living Voice " by showing a great deal of zeal in acquainting themselves with the most recent decrees of the Holy See. It is in this party that there appears from time to time considerable contempt for what are known as "mere Anglicans" — brethren of theirs, that is, who find their guidance in the Book of Common Prayer as interpreted by themselves — and even more than contempt for those of their brethren whom they name "mere Protestants" — those, that is to say, who at tempt to prove their religion by a simple appeal to the Scriptures. There are, perhaps, as many fanatics found in this extreme Ritualist School as among the most convinced of the extreme Low Church party: some of them (as has been said) even going so far as to profess their full allegiance to the Vicar of Christ, and their whole-hearted belief in his infallibility. Such as these latter, however, do not usually retain their convictions very long. Either they relapse into " mere Anglicanism " of some kind or another; or they act upon their convictions, and submit in act to him whose authority they have already acknowledged in word.

But of the rest — of those who have deliberately thought out their convictions up to the point of formu lating the position already described, though not to the point of facing the fallacy on which it is based-it must be said in justice that, at the present day, they are distinguished among all the parties of the Church of England for their faithful orthodoxy on most of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Creed, for their fearlessness in preaching them, and for their devoted and self-denying lives. It is from among these that the most devoted slum-clergy are drawn — men who live in all respects according to the true priestly and apostolic standard — and from these that the three or four Anglican " Religious Orders " of men, that can be taken seriously, are recruited. It is among these that the ideals of celibate life, of real self-sacrifice, and of unwavering faithfulness to truth, as they understand it, are sustained; and it is to these that Catholics must look to do the work from which the Church herself is so largely precluded by the prejudice and misunderstanding of the world— that is, for the gradual reCatholicising of England.