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

n. saaueea-e Latest Desh.

~nosi,ion Of the Church of England. followed
bv an attsmpt 10 d~smonstrats thAt Tn,
only possible authority for supsrnsture
Cbri.tian doctrine II the Church OF Rome
that Mr.. W, II. MAxAooG has UNDERTAKES N
his book entitled Docfrns and DocfTfHo'
Disyuption 0ondon, Adam and Charles
Blackl. The purpose Of the argument,
.~kilfnllv upfolded In this volume. IN, We
,ep.at. 10 oonvinos the reader that nom
theism or materiaiism there 70 no refuge
except within the Roman pale. II v toler-
ably certain that the authors cancellations
will not be accepted by either The Low
Church or the Broad Church wing OF The
Anglican Communion, but. on the other
hand. we should not DO surprised II b
did commend themselves TO soms repre-
sentativss OF the High Church elsmens'
They arc certainly presented In An inter-
. esting way, A. WIN indeed b taken TOR
granted BY those Who are familiar with
the attractiveness Of Mr.. Msllock's style.
What We aim at here Il, with ths help OF
the authors marginal summaries, to give
an outline OF tho argument set forth IN tho
thirteen chapters Of this book.
Mr.. Mallook bsgins by asserting chat
the cause OF the present crisis In the English
Churoh-the crisis which was created by
the Lambeth Judgment pronounced on
July 81, isee-is far deeper than b gener-
ally supposed The true cause 10 not really
any difference Of opinion about ritual. nor,
indeed, about particular doctrines, but
someshing much deeper. II II has escaped
the notics Of English Churchmen hitherto.
this h because not until lately has 1t be-
come fully operative. Yet the Anglican
clergy In their controversies unoonsciously
indicate its nature. They all continually
app>ai TO tho doctrines Of the Reformers
and the legal ~formularies Of the Church OF
England. This appeal no longer implies.
as IL did IN former days, that the Anglican
clergy really have a common standard OF
orthodoxy. They simply desire for reasons
Of convenience to show that their
doctrine 10 not condemned by the legal
formularies OF tho Church; but. should
II DO proved tc be 90, they, instead OF alter
ing their doctrines. would demand that
the formularies should DO altered.
The Ritualistio party, the Low Church
party and the Broad Church party are all
In this respect In the Same position. Theo-
retically, indeed, this was always the po-
sition Of Anglicans: they always had some
authority beyond the legal formularies Of
the Church. But. practically, till q recent
period. they regarded the formularies as
having settled the limits Of doctrine finally.
That such was the case IL shown by the
care taken by the Tractsrians on the one
hand and by early Broad Churchmen on the
other to show that their teaching did not
legally contradict the Articles. which proves
how strong was the general respect in which
the Articles were held. The word general
10 italicized because the Articles were GER
tainiy not held In respect by the High
Church or Broad Church innovators them
selves. The whole situation Is now in his
respect changed, Tho general reverence
for the Thirty-nine Articles has altogether
disappeared. That this is true Ii illustrated
BY two writer's dealing with the Lambeth
Judgment-Dr. Cobb and Mr.. George
Russell-who both say that 1t produced
the present crisis In the Church Of England
BY insisting on the legally binding char
acter ofthe Articles. which the whole Church
had by this time learnt to disregard. Here.
then, Is the feature Of the situation TO be
first considered. All Anglican parties alike
have out grown their old reliance on the
Anglican formularies. Even the most con-
servative Churchmen try to explain the
authority Of the Articles away. All Angli-
can parties are appealing to and waiting
for some rule Of faith different from and
wider than that supplied by the Anglican
Church az established In the time Of the
Reformation. Mr.. Mallock proceeds TO
consider the -consequences Of this fact.
Tho fact that the English Church In out
growing the formularies of the Reforma-
ton has, for It's logical consequence, 70
force on its members the question. 80
long laid 70 sleep, of who and what the
authorities for its doctrines are. This
question 10 pronounced practically new
to-day, on account Of the new prominence
Il has assumed, and the new conditions
under which IL IL asked. Its new prom
inence Is evidenced In all the controversy
Of to-day by the frequency Of the refer
ences made to it, not only by Ritualistic
and Broad Church innovators, but by
the conservative Low Church party, as
a recent volume OF essays called 'Church
and Faith demonstrates. This whole vol
ume, we are told. Is pervaded with the
assumption that the authorities for Chris
tian doctrine are 20 be sought for outside
the formula Of the Reformation. The
assumption is propounded with special
clearness In a preface 20 the volume by
the Bishop of Hereford, who says that
the proofs of Christianity must be studied
IN the light Of modern knowledge, The
new importance. however. possessed by
the question OF the ultimate authority
for Christian doctrine is disclosed plainly
by tho growing diversity which doctrinal
teaching In the English Church exhibits.
For example. as to the question OF what
the Christian Church is, Anglicans Of diff
ferent schools give four conflicting an
swers. There are even greater differ
ences with regard 70 even more important
doctrines, as. for instance, the nature
Of the Redemption and the nature Of Christ
himself. As to the Redemption, there
has always been a difference between the
High and Low Churchmen; but. with the
the rise of the Broad Church party, a new
difference OF a far more profound kind
has developed itself which practically
introduces u new conception Of Christian
ity alto gether. The magnitude Of these
differences Ia obvious; but attention Is
directed 10 IL by Mr.. Mallock mainly for
the further fact 10 which It points-the
fact. namely, Of tho differences In the
Church OF England to-day as TO tho funda-
mental question Of the authority from