Canon Liddon wrote to the Times of Christmas Day to
refute Monseigneur Capers assertion,—made in the reply to Mr. Glad- stone,—that teachers like Canon Liddon are, though unintention- ally, leading their disciples towards Rome. Dr. Liddon maintains, reasonably enough, that to teach doctrine held in common with Rome is not to Romanise,—else to! teach Theism would be to Romanise. But he adds that to teach Sacerdotalism, in its mode- rate Anglican form, is not to Romanise, and that the only true allies of Rome are the friends of that restless policy which would "at one moment rid us of our creeds, at another would ignore sour Orders, at a third would invites Parliament consisting of men 'of any or no religious belief to regulate our worship of Almighty God." In other words, it is the proposal to enlarge the compre- hension of the Church, so as to suit the actual religious state of its worshippers, which drives to Rome those who think that doc- trinal immutability is the first " note " of a true Church. Possibly. But is not Monseigneur Capel right in supposing that both sacer- dotalism, in however moderate a form, and the theory of doctrinal immutability itself, necessarily imply a living Church authority which shall determine who are the true priests and what is the unchange- able doctrine, and that that living Church authority certainly does not exist among Anglicans ? And if so, it is not the proposal to change ecclesiastical conditions which drives our Anglicans to Rome, but the complete absence of any organic Church authority -to condemn and resist change, which, nevertheless, Dr. Liddon has taught his disciples that it is everybody's duty to condemn and resist. A Church of moderate pretensions to authority as much needs a living organ to sanction its eclecticism, as does one .of imperious pretensions to sustain its absolute decrees.
Previous page
