Many schools of Religion and Ethics are to be found among us, and they all profess to magnify, in one shape or other, what they consider the principle of love; but what they lack is, a firm maintenance of that characteristic of the Divine Nature, which, in accommodation to our infirmity, is named by St. John and his brethren, the wrath of God. Let this be well observed.
There are men who are advocates of Expedience; these, as far as they are religious at all, resolve conscience into an instinct of mere benevolence, and refer all the dealings of Providence with His creatures to the same one Attribute. Hence, they consider all punishment to be remedial, a means to an end, deny that the woe threatened against sinners is of eternal duration, and explain away the doctrine of the Atonement.
There are others, who place religion in the mere exercise of the excited feelings; and these too, look upon their God and Saviour, as far (that is) as they themselves are concerned, solely as a God of love. They believe themselves to be converted from sin to righteousness by the mere manifestation of that love to their souls, drawing them on to Him; and they imagine that that same love, untired by any possible transgressions on their part, will surely carry forward every individual so chosen to final triumph. Moreover, as accounting that Christ has already done everything for their salvation, they do not feel that a moral change is necessary on their part, or rather, they consider that the Vision of revealed love works it in them spontaneously; in either case dispensing with all laborious efforts, all "fear and trembling," all self-denial in "working out their salvation," nay, looking upon such qualifications with suspicion, as leading to a supposed self-confidence and spiritual pride.
Once more, there are others of a mystical turn of mind, with untutored imaginations and subtle intellects, who follow the theories of the old Gentile philosophy. These, too, are accustomed to make love the one principle of life and providence in heaven and earth, as if it were a pervading Spirit of the world, finding a sympathy in every heart, absorbing all things into itself, and kindling a rapturous enjoyment in all who contemplate it. They sit at home speculating, and separate moral perfection from action. These men either hold, or are in the way to hold, that the human soul is pure by nature; sin an external principle corrupting it; evil, destined to final annihilation; Truth attained by means of the imagination; conscience, a taste; holiness, a passive contemplation of God; and obedience, a mere pleasurable work.
It is difficult to discriminate accurately between these three schools of opinion, without using words of unseemly familiarity; yet I have said enough for those who wish to pursue the subject. Let it be observed then, that these three systems, however different from each other in their principles and spirit, yet all agree in this one respect, viz., in overlooking that the Christian's God is represented in Scripture, not only as a God of love, but also as "a consuming fire." Rejecting the testimony of Scripture, no wonder they also reject that of conscience, which assuredly forebodes ill to the sinner, but which, as the narrow religionist maintains, is not the voice of God at all,—or is a mere benevolence, according to the disciple of Utility,—or, in the judgment of the more mystical sort, a kind of passion for the beautiful and sublime. Regarding thus "the goodness" only, and not "the severity of God," no wonder that they ungird their loins and become effeminate; no wonder that their ideal notion of a perfect Church, is a Church which lets every one go on his way, and disclaims any right to pronounce an opinion, much less inflict a censure on religious error.
- Cardinal Newman, in his sermon on "Tolerance of Religious Error"
8 comments:
Ok..now you HAVE DONE IT! You have quoted from my absolute favorite Anglican.
If you ever get the chance, read "The Church of England according to Newman' by Stanly Jaki...It is realy quite prophetic when you look at what Newman said would happen and what is actually happening today. Shakes you up a little.
sanctorale
CS Lewis, in His Narnia Books, specifically in 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,' notes tghis very compellingly. I'm paraphrasing.
The children have just been told that this 'Aslan' that they are going to meet (The Christ figure of the volume) is actually a lion.
"But ... a lion!" was the response. "Is he quite safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver, rather scornfully. "Of course he's not safe. He's a lion, I tell you ... but he is good."
A safe God is no God at all. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. The soul thsat sinneth, it shall die. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But God is love. He sent forth his Son that none need perish. He calls us to repentance, and provides the guarantee that true repentance is answered from the Cross. He is not safe. He is terrifying indeed. But He is good and wants us -- to love us forever. But on His terms, not on ours.
ed
As a deacon (soon to be former) in the APCK who is leaving the Anglican or "Anglo-catholic" tradition for the real Catholic Church, I am amused when Anglicans quote Cardinal Newman. The fact that he could be so revered by Anglicans while having his Apologia and subsequent essays in defense of Rome blithely dismissed or ignored is one of the things which has contributed to my conversion. But then ignoring questions or controversies which can't be satisfactorily answered is an Anglican tradition.
Rod Treat
Why is it out of place to heed wise words from a man when he is preaking truth, even if one does not entirely accept all of his opinions? I'm sorry, but that is an entirely illogical stance. No man is a seamless whole, to be entirely accepted or entirely rejected. In fact, as you enter the RCC, remember that that is applied, even by Vatican One, to the pope himself. There are only certain circumstances in which he MUST be believed. Picking and choosing among authorities is not a peculiarly Anglican activity, but one that any thinking person is bound to follow.
ed
Ed,
Calm down. I never said that you have to agree with everything the man said. I simply pointed out that Anglicans typically just ignore or dismiss that which they cannot logically answer. Newman's Apologia is one of many elephants in the room which are just ignored - not answered.
Rod Treat
OK Rod.
I'm cool, calm, and collected. I won't dispute that you doidn't say what it still looks as though you were saying. Could be my perception.
But it still looks like you are poking at an attitude that is not really there. I have pondered Newman's Apologia and his reasons for moving on. I have understood his positions and have reasons for not accepting them, some of which have actually appeared in comments on this board. Furthermore, I have had many conversations with other AngloCatholics on just these issues. I don't think we ignore the elephants, We pet them. There's no greater occurence of blindspotitis among Anglicans than among RCs.
Yes, I do revere Newman, and, yes, I quite consciously disagree with him on much that he said. And that's precisely the satan of a powerful lot of Anglicans.
ed
On this blog Newman has been answered in times past. I believe in the Anglican position, and Cardinal Newman has never convinced me to believe otherwise. It is interesting as well that his particular theory of Doctrinal Development was rejected by Rome, even though it is very popular today among some Roman Catholics.
Yes, I do revere Newman, and, yes, I quite consciously disagree with him on much that he said. And that's precisely the satan of a powerful lot of Anglicans.
awful mistyping on my part. You all must've been wondering what I was saying.
"that's precisely the STAND of a powerful lot of Anglicans.
Post a Comment