Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

heresy," for is not every such church, ipso facto, enlightened with orthodoxy? For those that retain any of the more ancient anti-Roman doctrines, I myself feel a special sympathy and affection. Arianism and Pelagianism, pure and simple, have died away; but the taint of Arianism and the taint of Pelagianism may still be found in schismatic churches by the devoted searcher after truth; and did not Pelagius himself make his home with the great Nestorius, whose heresies -i.e., orthodoxies-are still held by the ancient Syrian Church?

It is interesting, again, to trace the opposite heresy (?) to that of Nestorius. The latter held that there were two distinct persons in Christ; whereas Eutyches maintained not only that there was but one person, but one

C

nature a

-

mixed nature, neither

human or divine.

This view was condemned by the Fourth General Council, but it is still held by the Armenian, Jacobite, Coptic, and Abyssinian Churches, with most of which our Anglican ecclesiastics have more or less striven to evince a fraternal sympathy. Moreover, any doctrine which implies something "mixed"-a little of one and a little of the other, partly neither and a good deal of bothhas a wholesome Anglican ring about it. We can, therefore, unhesitatingly claim to have much in common with the early British Christians on this point, and whatever our enemies may say, they cannot deny that the same spirit has been shown both by the early Britons and the modern

English towards the religious views which we have been describing. Let those who will call them heresies. We do not. Our position is that the characteristics of the early British Church, its clergy and laity, are the same as those of our own.

With plenty, luxury increased, and this was immediately attended with all sorts of crimes; in particular, cruelty, hatred of truth, and love of falsehood. . . . Nor were the laity only guilty of these things, but even our Lord's flock, and His pastors also, addicting themselves to drunkenness, animosity, litigiousness, contention, envy, and other such like crimes,

and casting off the light yoke of Christ.'

7 This is a very instructive passage. Who were these wicked pastors, who cast off the light yoke of Christ? Why, the dissenters, of course! The dissenters of the period. The text distinctly says so, for it says "pastors"—not clergymen. We never call our clergy pastors: the dissenters sometimes do. They too cast off the yoke of Christ. Are not animosity, litigiousness, contention, and envy found amongst dissenting bodies now? Are they not haters of truth and lovers of falsehood? Are they not often cruel? Are they not sometimes addicted to drunkenness? How I wish that Methodists, Baptists, and Plymouth Brethren would read our truthful

Bede ! It distresses me, however, to have to say that certain dissenters have, like ourselves, claimed a paternity from the British Church, but the invalidity of their claim is at once apparent; for that there were British bishops is certain, and episcopacy is the bête noire of dissent.

Bishops of York, London, and Caerleon were present at the Council of Arles in Gaul, in the year 314, where they subscribed a letter to Pope Sylvester, in which the decrees of the Council are described and submitted for the approval of the Pope, whose duty, the letter adds, will be "to promulgate them to all the faithful."

The presence of the British Bishops. at the Council of Arles is easily accounted for. Of course they had betaken themselves thither to hold a

« ForrigeFortsett »