LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
"A LAYMANON ANGLICANISM."
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."1
SIR,—In confirmation of your remarks in your review of " Romanism, Protestantism, Anglicanism," by " Oxoniensis," that there is no necessary connection between the Sacramental and the Sacerdotal theory of the Eucharist, I may mention that the former view is stated, and that in a very strong sacrificial form, in a recent volume of lectures on the " Worship and Offices of the Church of Scotland," addressed to the Divinity students at the four Scottish Universities by Dr. Sprott, one of the Lecturers on Pastoral Theology appointed by the General Assembly of the Kirk, assuredly one of the most definitely non-sacerdotal communions in Christendom.
To myself, the strongest argument against the Zwinglian theory is its admirable clearness, simplicity, and consistency. It possesses these qualities in so high a degree (being capable, besides, of taking a very devout form), that if it had ever been the belief of ancient Christendom, it must have left the clearest traces in patristic literature, if not in ancient liturgies. How- ever soon corruption and superstition might have crept in, the original belief must have held its ground with sufficient tenacity to be at least still discoverable, even if it did not actively com- bat the intruding views on a large and public scale. But not the faintest suggestion which is so much as patient of Zwing- lianism is discoverable, so far as my reading has gone—and I think I must have read almost every word in patristic treatises which bears on the matter—until the rise of the mediaeval sects.
With regard to the discussion by " Oxoniensis " of the view taken by the Church of England of non-episcopal ordinations, his facts and arguments are borrowed (I think without a single exception) from a quite curiously inaccurate, unhistorical, and paralogical article in the Quarterly Review of October, 1878, entitled, " Is the Church of England Protestant ?"
The fallacy in this article—or rather one of the fallacies, for it swarms with them—lies in confusing between the apparent fact that during Elizabeth's reign non-episcopalian ministers were admitted to Anglican benefices in some cases (only about four of which can be substantiated), and the legal regularity of such ad- missions. In point of fact, they were entirely illegal always, being barred by the Preface to the Ordinal, then, as now, statute law, and owed their impunity to the difficulty, in those wholly news- paperless and nearly roadless days, of calling powerful digni- taries and patrons to account for obscure jobs, such as presenta- tion to a rural living. Where the case allowed of publicity, as in Whittingham's appointment to the Deanery of Durham and Travers's application in London for preferment, the evidence shows that the illegality was recognised and appealed against. I am not discussing the moral or theological merits of the question, but simply stating its legal bearing.—I am, Sir, &c.,
RICHARD F. LITTLEDLIA.
9 Red Lion Square, London, W.C.
Previous page
