The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-09

theory put forward by the Low Church,
mon; the theory that the Bibles inspiration
Ia vouchcd for by the personal intuition
of the individual, and that its meaning In
Interpreted by some process which takes
place 10 the individual mind. Then. again,
Is the theory OF the High Church, the theory
which attributes authority 70 the primi-
tive Church. In the third place, the answer
Of the Ritualists. instead OF combining us
to tho teaching Of the primitive Church.
assigns an equal authority to that Of sub
sequent ages; or. In other words. make the
consensus OF h eChurch in all ages the source
Of authority. Having pointed out that
these three answers contradict each other
Mr.. Mallock considers zach on Its merits.
frss asking II It 10 consistent with ITSELF
and then. II practically, II will do what Is
needed. The intuitional theory is con-
demned by him on the score OF the con-
ficting character OF it's results. The au-
thority Of tho primitive Church fails at the
very point at which 1t IL most needed. h
primitive Church, according 10 the Dean
Of Canterbury, was separated only by .
brief interspace OF time from a living
memory Of Christ and His hrst apostles.
But, II anything IL certain. II Ii certain hat
Christ never asserted the inspiration OF
any part Of the New Testament, for the
simple reason that none OF IL was written
during His life on earth; nor was the in
SEPARATION of any part OF IL asserted by any
ono OF His immediate followers. The
third theory. that, namely. which places
the source Of authority In h consensus
OF all the Churches throughout Christian
history fails also, because there Is no con-
sensus among any Of tho Churches that
can ratify IL.
Having thus considered each OF the
three theories, those, namely, OF the Low
Church, the High Church. and the Ritual
lists, on its merits-the Broad Church theory
is reserved-our author proceeds to test
them by their relation to the questions they
are meant TO solve.
Mr.. Mallock illustrates by three examples
the nature and position Of the doctrines
which the three theories OF authority just
referred TO are invoked to ~substantiate.
The three typical doctrines are these: Tha
which asserts hat Christ was born OF a
virgin: that which asserts that having been
crucifed, He descended into He'll; and that
which asserts that, having risen, He ascen-
ded into Heaven. To these Is added q
fourth, which asserts hat He was cruci-
fed by Pontius PLATE. Having, FIRST,
examined the effects Of criticism on the
New Testament, Mr.. Mallock would then
ask whether the old evidences any longer
suffice to prove those doctrines; and, II IL
DO admitted that they do not, whether
any Of the three Anglican authorities above
defined will do 30. That the evidential
value OF the New Testament has been
affected by criticism all Anglican parties
acknowledge. But in what way2 First,
by putting the events and ideas recorded
In a new perspective; secondly. by putting
in a new perspective admitted facts with
regard to the teri. Seen In this new per-
spective, the evidence for the virgin birth
loses its independent value. So does the
evidence for the descent into He'll and for
the resurrection. These events are not
disproved by criticism. but are merely
shown 70 require evidence in their favor
other than that Of the New Testament.
VIII any of the Anglican theories supply
us with this evidence? This question Ia
answered In a chapter wherein the Low
Church, the High Church and the Ritual
istic theories are each tested by being
applied to the doctrines that have just
been mentioned.
The chapter begins by showing that
the intuitional theory held by Low Church
men will certainly not furnish the evidence
required. II can give some support to
moral, but none to doctrinal, Christianity,
as any Low Church divine would find.
IL pressed by a doubling member Of his
congregation. The authority Of the primi-
tive Church asserted by the High Church
men is not more helpful, for it Is weak in
precise proportion to its primitiveness.
Not only does the witness of the really
primitive Church fail to s~ubstantiate the
events which doctrinal Christianity postu-
lates, but 1t gives It's authority TO beliefs.
such as the necessity Of circumcision and
the immediate second coming Of Christ
which doctrinal Christianity REJECTS. Since.
then, the primitive Church asserted doc
trines which al Christians to-day reject,
it IL no authority for what they still &C.
cept. The Ritualistic theory. namely. the
theory that authority resides in the unani-
nous consent OF the Church during all
periods OF its existence, seems. at the frst
glance. more promising. in spite Of the
fact that no Protestant theory provides
this source Of authority with any exist
ing organ of utterance. or any example
of such an organs utteranoe in the past,
except the Creeds themselves. The Creeds,
indeed. do vouch for the very doctrines
in question. But is il credible, asks Mr..
Mallock. that the CONSENSUS OF the Church
during all periods of its existence" can
be a real authority, II it can be only shown
TO have spoken twice, or. at most, three
times, In certain specified Councilsi How.
again, can Professionals, who. like Low
Churchmen, declare all Councils 10 be
fallible. separate the Creeds from the de-
oisions OF Councils, and claim infallibility
for the former as distinguished from the
latter utteranoesY II IS true that the Ritual
lists avoid one difficulty which besets other
Professionals, for they admit that General
Councils are infallible; but they also main
tain that General Councils became i'm
possible after tho schism between the East
and West. Therefore they admit. just
as other Protestants do, that there can
not be any infalible Councils now How.
then, Is the alleged consensus TO speak,
The Ritualists can give no definite and
ineligible answer. Mr.. Mallock goes on,
however, 20 test the Ritualistic theory Of
authority vet further NV asking how the