THE OLD CATIIOLICS AND THE ORIENTAL CHURCH.
IT is much easier, or we fancy so, to understand the impulse
Of the travelling theologians who have recently met at Bonn for a discussion on the reunion of Christendom—raised into rather factitious importance by long reports in newspapers—than to understand why they think they have achieved so much success. The Times has fastened, naturally enough, on the quaint or even queer incidents of the "Conference," with its repotters trying to take down speeches in many languages on the Double Procession, and sending telegrams about the eternal existence of the Holy Ghost ; its President "sweeping away" Purgatory as his con- tribution to the union of Christian Churches ; and its Irish dele- gate, Who wants to conciliate Latin and Greek Catholics by audible doubts whether a Council not representing non-Episcopal Churches can be considered in a binding sense (Ecumenical. But the Times, which represents average Englishmen, with their abiding though latent doubt whether a man ought not to carry his Church under his hat, does not sympathise with the longing which men who hold that Christianity is a histom ic and traditional as well as divine system feel for arriving at "unity," that is, for getting hold of that central and undisputed body of continuous tradition which, as they think, all who accept Christ at all may recognise as true. If that could be found, and recog- nised as found, and held to contain all that is important., the re- union of Christendom might, they think, and perhaps justly think, be very near at hand. Granting their premises, which we must grant before we can understand them in the least degree, " unity " in that setts:: is a thing worth very severe effort, and we do not see why Canon Liddon, or the Archbishop of Syra, or the Bishop of Gibraltar is to-be smiled at for meeting the Old Catholics at Bonn, any more than a body of physiologists, or linguists, or philan- thropists are to be smiled at for meeting anywhere else. COO- lerences do not impress us much as useful undertakings, but after all, some Conferences have influenced the world ; and the absurdity, if it exists, is rather in the Times, which treats a discussion-forum as if it were a Parliament, than in the speakers, who are only inquiring whether a Parliament be possible. No doubt the theologians rode their bobby rather hard, forgot that the world *as looking on, And employed a professional terminology which, to most students, will not suggest the authors of the Nicene or even the Athanasian Creed, so much as some Brahmin try- ing to explain the Trimourti, and in the majority of Christians will revive a recollection of O'Connell's "rhomboidal parallelo- pipeds ;" but they were no more bound to forsake their ter- minology, and so become diffuse, than physicians or writers upon music. It may be true, too, that something of mundane feeling entered into the motives of the more prominent leaders of the discussion. There is a trace of impatienee in Dr. Dfillinger's proceedings, and we can readily iniagine that, sincere and earnest teacher as he is, and hopeful as he itas at first Of leading a new Reformation, he sighs over the paucity-of his adherents from among the Catholic ranks; frets under the tendency of many who support him to break atiray from the lines within which he restrains him- self, and would- gladly sacrifice much of unimportant conviction, if thereby he could secure the adhesion of an active body like the English High Churchmen, or a great Conservative mass like the "Oriental" Church. Dr. Dollinger has to weight his Church against the Rationalists, who admire it only because it breaks up
the' unity of Rome. Dr. Liddon, again, and his co/leagues, are at heart slightly impatient of being always treated as a Right Wing of a single Church, instead of depositaries of the only true faith; are over-sensitive about their " orders"—which are neither the better nor the 'worse because acknowledged or decried by multitudes—and would very gladly show that they are but re- verting tothe traditional " orthodoxy " of large bodies of Christ- ians, the antiquity and continuoutness of whose syetem can no more be doubted than their independence of Rome. And finally, the Oriental Bishops are a good deal influenced, we suspect, by that admiration of the vigorous, audhcious, conquering West which has fallen like a disease on semi-Asiatic minds, and maybe felt by Roumanian Archbishops as strongly and as painfully as by Turkish Paellas. The discoverer of a new motor is not necessarily en- lightened as to the propriety of the " Filioque," but if he agreed with a Levantine thereupon, what a protection for the Levantine against accusations of stupidity ! The Oriental Bishops do not doubt for an instant their own orthodoxy, they have nolesitation as to their own monopoly of truth, but if their orthodoxy and their view of truth could but be accepted by the wise West, they would feel, if possible, even more sure. If Dr. Diillinger and Dr. Liddon and Bishop Reinkens agree with them, that is but another proof that they are, and always have been, right ; but then it is such a strong and such a gratifying proof ! Dr. Liddon is sure of the origin of man ; but if Professor Huxley and the Duke of Argyll endorsed his view, how much more than sure he would be ! But none of these prepossessions would lead any of those who hold- them to deny or suppress vital truth ; and, as we said, for Christian theo- logians not content to rely solely on the Scriptures or to break wholly with authority, the pursuit of unity, the discovery of a common and unchanged body of faith among Churches appar- ently so divergent, must have an entrancing interest.
But we fail entirely to see the reason for the gladness which, according to the Reporters, pervaded the later seances of the Conference. The theologians present do not seem, to our imper- fect perceptions, to have discovered the underlying unity in all the Christian creeds, but only to have discovered forms of words vague enough to comprehend conflicting views. The old creeds were at least definite, if diverse, as to the Double Procession; but the new one is indefinite, without Preventing the possibility of diversity. We do not care to go into the theologic value of the definition adopted, but may just point out how fatal the effort to embody in Six Articles all views as to the origin of the Third Per- son in the Trinity, that is, in the orthodox definition of the Divine, is to any project of Reunion. Constantinople says boldly that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone; while the Western Church, with which, in this instance, the English Church agrees, asserts the process from the Father and time Son. That would seem to be an irreconcilable difference, and though, no doubt, as the Times says, modern Christians have ceased to discuss difficulties as to the nature of the Trinity, or rather as to the terms in which the indefinable may be defined, a radical difference of that kind as to the apparent nature of the Godhead does and must affect all theological philosophy. If that could be removed something would have been gained towards reunion, but how is it removed by the adoption of these articles, or their explanation ?— " 1. We agree in accepting the symbols and decisions in matters of faith of the Old Undivided Church.
2. We agree that the addition of 'Anse ' to the symbol was not ecclesiastically justified.
3. Wo agree in accepting the explanation of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is given by the Fathers of the Undivided Church.
We object to every idea and expression in which is contained the acceptation of two Principles, or Awe; or ez;v;e4g, in the Trinity. We accept the -doctrine of Johannes of Damascus concerning the Holy Ghost, as it is expressed in the following paragraphs, inthe Sense of the doctrine of the Old Undivided Church : 1. The Holy Ghost issues from the Father (bc vo; Thscpii) as the Beginning (imi), the cause (a;eIa), the Fountain (rrsiri) of the Godhead, (Be Recta Sententik n. 1. Contra Alanich., n. 4.) 2. The Holy Ghost issues from the Son (in 411; Thi;), bediuse in the Godhead there is only one Beginning, one Cause by which all that is in the Godhead is produced. (De Fide Orthod., L, 8.)
3. The Holy Ghost issues from the Father -through the Son. (De Fide Orthod., L, 12., &c.)
4. The Holy Ghost is the image (DIM) of the Son, the linage df the Father (De Fide Orthod., L, 13: Eissi, re; Ilrevrt4; Voc, ;gal Tiaii .nelie,e,), issuing from the Father, and resting in the Son as the power refiectea by Him. (De Fide Orthod., I., 7: T -0- n --L0Tp-f srpayzepivity mg: iv 4-07 A.171) Arzlrecuop;tn, xeci atm.; obray ixopecrn,A. VnteciArr.)
5. The Holy Ghost is the personal product of the Father, beloteng to the Son, but not out of the Son, bficante it Is the Spirit of the month of the Godhead which pronounces the Word. (Be HymneTrisitg., n. 28.)
6. The Holy Ghost forms the connection of the Father and-the Son, and is, through the Son, associated with the Father. (De icicle °dila, T., 13.)" MriIt Rome accept those articles ? Certainly not, or any others ' proceeding from any source except herself, but will probably ex- plicitly denounce them as heretical about the Godhead, and limiting to a dangerous degree the body of authority on which her faith depends. Will Old Catholics—that is to say, the many devout men who wish to remain Catholics, but are shocked by the apparent exaggeration of an ancient belief involved iu the dogma of Infallibility—accept them ? We should say certainly not, unless they are prepared to break away altogether from Catho- .4cism as well from as Popery. It will be folly for them to assert, as up to this time they have asserted, that they wish to be clear of nothing but Papal pretension,.when they are not only omitting, but denouncing in terms a distinctive and cardinal dogma of their creed. If "Filioque" was improperly added to the Belief, then not only is not the Papacy infallible, but the Catholic Church is not infallible either, for its entire body, Councils, Bishops, priests, and laity, have been affirming the "Filioque" for centuries and generations. The Vatican Decree may be explained away as unconstitutional, or passed under moral duress, but no conceivable explanation, except indefinite liability to error, will get rid of such a blunder as the Bonn Conference imputes, not to -the Papacy, but to the Catholic Church at large. Will the English Church accept them ? Certainly not. Definite theology is at so low an ebb here, that the omission of the "Filioque" might not appal English divines, but a great change without an object they clearly will never make. And finally, will the Greek Church accept them ? With all submission to its representatives present at the Conference, we should say certainly not, unless its members are prepared for changes which would indicate that its old con- servative character had given way to a desire for change suffi- ciently strong to induce it to tone down, and in fact nearly eliminate its strongest assertion of individuality. The Oriental branch may be ready for that, though there is no proof of it, ex- .cept the adhesion of the prelates present at Bonn ; but the Russian branch certainly is not, and a new schism in the Greek Church would be a strange result of a new effort at the reunion of Christendom. As it seems to us, Dr. Dollinger and his assistants, so far from preparing the way for reunion, have been merely pushing Catholics farther away, in order to approach Greeks a little nearer, but not near enough, Put what sense you like on the exposition of principles accepted, and still it is an admission that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that the Greek Church is right, though not cautious enough in its definitions,—is, in fact, an .enormous concession to Constantinople at the expense of Rome. That spirit comes out still more clearly in Dr. Diillinger's speech on Purgatory. If that speech means anything, it means that Purgatory is a good big lie, invented by Gregory the Great, and fostered by successive Popes to fill their pockets by the sale of indulgences. So it is, Protestants will say; but then those who say it without being Protestants are certainly not Roman Catholics, in any conceivable sense of that description. They belong to a new sect, which claims the right of expounding the faith for itself, and adding to or taking .a way the gravest doctrines. To talk of a Reunion of Christendom established by sweeping away doctrines like purgatory is a misuse of terms. The movement may evolve a new creed based on 'Christianity, though we fear it will not, but to call it a reconcilia- tion of the old forms seems to lay minds almost puerile. We might as well say that if Quakers gave up their doctrine of the inner light, and Unitarians acknowledged the Divinity of Christ, Quakers and Unitarians would be reunited. It would be simpler and easier to enter the Greek Church at once, purify and remodel at, and then try to make that the universal and sole Church, than to waste time and strength on so unreal a Union.
Previous page
