{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52430/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52430","id":"gutenberg_52430","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52430","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Doctrines"],"text":"Transcribed from the [1881?] Hatchards edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                            \u201cNOTHING BETWEEN.\u201d\n\n\n         \u201cTHE SPECIAL DOCTRINES VINDICATED AT THE REFORMATION AS\n             BEARING UPON THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE CHURCH.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 A PAPER\n\n                       READ AT THE FIRST CONFERENCE\n                                  OF THE\n                  CRAVEN EVANGELICAL UNION HELD IN LEEDS\n\n         UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF THE VERY REV. THE DEAN OF RIPON,\n\n                            MARCH 22nd, 1881,\n\n                                  BY THE\n\n                         REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A.,\n\n          Vicar of Holy Trinity, Tonbridge Wells, and Hon. Canon\n                              of Canterbury.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                      LONDON: HATCHARDS, PICCADILLY.\n                LEEDS: R. JACKSON, 16, COMMERCIAL STREET.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                             PRICE TWOPENCE.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nTHE SPECIAL DOCTRINES OF THE REFORMATION AS BEARING UPON THE SPIRITUAL\nLIFE OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nIt is a glorious subject that your Committee has entrusted to my care,\nand I consider it no small privilege to have been led by your invitation\nto study it.  At the same time it is not without its almost overwhelming\ndifficulty, for our conflict with Rome extends along the whole line of\ntruth, so that almost the whole of Christianity is included in the\nspecial doctrines of the Reformation.  The struggle is between\nChristianity paganized, and Christianity pure; and the real conflict lies\nbetween the whole system of the one, and the whole system of the other.\nIt reminds me of a conversation between a Protestant clergyman and a\nRomish priest.  The clergyman, in order to illustrate the spirit in which\nChristian brethren should hide each other\u2019s faults, told a story of an\nartist who, in painting the Emperor of Russia, put the finger to the face\nin the attitude of thoughtfulness, and so concealed an unsightly blemish,\non which the Romish priest said, \u201cAnd why do you not do the same towards\nus?\u201d  To which his friend replied, \u201cWe would if we could; but we cannot;\nfor in your case it is blot all over.\u201d  So the taint is all over the\nteaching of Rome.\n\nYet there is one class of subjects in which our conflict with Rome is\nmore especially prominent, viz., that which concerns the application of\nthe great salvation to the individual.  That salvation may be compared to\na chain reaching down from heaven.  Respecting the higher links, such as\nthe nature of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of the Son,\nthe humanity and the purpose of his death, there is no direct collision\nbetween us; but when we come down to the last link of all, the\napplication of the whole work to the sinner, it is then that the real\nbattle rages.  The great struggle of the Reformation was a struggle\nbetween the divine application and the human; between the simple\nprinciple of gift as revealed by God himself, and the man-made system of\nmerit as constructed by the Church of Rome.\n\nTo illustrate this point let us study four particulars, which may be\nlikened to the four corner stones of our citadel, and consider them in\nthe order in which they stand in our Articles; the sufficiency of the\nScriptures; justification by faith; the spirituality of the sacraments;\nand the final completeness of the one propitiation.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n(1.)\u2014_The Sufficiency of the Scriptures_.\n\nIt is the fashion to say that the Articles were intended as a compromise;\nbut that nothing can be further from the fact may, I believe, be proved\nwithout the slightest difficulty.  The Council of Trent met in the year\nA.D. 1546, and then drew up some of its most stringent dogmatical\ndecrees.  It was in direct opposition to these decrees that the Articles\nwere framed six years afterwards, as containing the clear,\nwell-considered, and uncompromising testimony of the Church of England.\nThis may be proved even by their omissions, for there are some things\nwhich we might wish to find in them, but which have been passed over in\nsilence, for the simple reason that respecting them there was no\ncollision with Rome.  Such, _e.g._, is the inspiration of the Scriptures.\nIf we were called to draw up the Article now, the subject of inspiration\nwould be the first to be considered.  But no error had been taught by\nRome respecting it, and therefore it did not appear on the battlefield,\nand was not mentioned in the Article.  The Article referred only to the\nnew position defined by Rome in the Council of Trent, and that new\nposition involved the insufficiency of the Scriptures.  Rome taught two\nerrors, first, that there are two parallel lines of truth, \u201cwritten\nScripture and unwritten tradition,\u201d and declared that both must be\nreceived \u201cwith equal sense of piety and reverence\u201d; and second, Rome\nplaced the Church as an interpreter between the Scriptures and the\nindividual, and decreed that no one should \u201cdare to interpret the\nScriptures except according as the holy Mother Church has held, and still\nholds, and also according to the unanimous consent of the fathers, even\nthough their interpretations should never at any time have been brought\nto light.\u201d  It was in direct opposition to this decree that the Sixth\nArticle on the Sufficiency of the Scriptures was drawn up six years\nafterwards.  It declared Scripture to be sufficiently full and\nsufficiently clear: sufficiently full, for it contains all things\nnecessary to salvation without any supplement from tradition; and\nsufficiently clear, for, without the aid of either Church authority or\nthe unanimous consent of the fathers, it speaks right home to the heart\nand understanding, so that whatever \u201cis not read therein, or may be\nproved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be\nbelieved as an Article of the faith.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n(2.)\u2014_Justification by Faith Alone_.\n\n\u201cHow should man be justified with God?\u201d has always been the first grand\nquestion for an awakened conscience.  Thus those who know what it is to\nbe justified through faith, will not be surprised at Luther\u2019s memorable\nstatement that the doctrine of justification by faith is the test of a\nstanding or falling church, for we all know that in the case of\nindividuals it is the turning point between a life of fear and a life of\npeace; may I not add between even death and life itself?  Now on this\npoint we are in direct collision with Rome.  The conflict turns upon a\nsingle word.  How can it be of such overwhelming importance, some will\nsay, if all turns upon a word?  But one word may make all the difference\nbetween truth and error, between peace and anxiety.  There was a time\nwhen the whole controversy respecting the divinity of our Blessed Saviour\nturned on a letter, the little letter _\u03b9_ in the word \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, which\nmade all the difference between oneness and resemblance.  The turning\npoint in this controversy is the one word \u201conly.\u201d  In 1546 Rome decreed\n\u201cif any man shall say that men are justified by the imputation of the\nrighteousness of Christ _only_, or the remission of our sins _only_, and\nnot by grace and charity, which is infused it their hearts by the Holy\nScriptures, and is inherent in them, let him be anathema.\u201d  That anathema\nthe Church of England boldly challenged when in A.D. 1552 she drew up her\nArticles; and with distinct reforms to the \u201c_only_\u201d of Rome\u2019s decree, she\nsaid exactly that on which Rome had pronounced her anathema, \u201cwe are\naccounted righteous before God _only_ for the merit of our Lord and\nSaviour, Jesus Christ,\u201d and that \u201cwe are justified by faith _only_, is a\nmost wholesome doctrine.\u201d  Such an Article does not look like a\ncompromise.  It was the direct and open acceptance of Rome\u2019s challenge.\n\u201cIf any man says _only_, let him be anathema,\u201d says Rome.  We say it,\nsays the Church of England, for we know it to be the truth of God, and,\nknowing that, we defy your curse.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n(3.)\u2014_The Spirituality of the Sacraments_.\n\nI am often surprised that staunch Protestants appear sometimes to speak\nwith a certain measure of distrust of the Church Catechism, for there are\nfew documents which contain clearer, or more decisive, statements as to\ngreat Protestant principles.  What, _e.g._, can be clearer than the\ndefinition given of a sacrament, \u201cAn outward and visible sign of an\ninward and spiritual grace\u201d?  That definition teaches two truths\u2014(1) That\nthe grace is inward and spiritual, and (2) That the sign is distinct from\nit, being outward and visible.  In that short sentence is contained one\nof the great principles of the reformation.  Rome had confused the sign\nwith the grace when it decreed that the whole substance of the elements\nwas changed into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ, in\nwhich case it is obvious the sign must cease to be a sign, being changed\ninto the thing signified.  The Church of England taught, Article 28, that\nsuch \u201ctransubstantiation was repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,\nand overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.\u201d  Rome had decreed, \u201cIf any\none shall say that in the Eucharist Christ is received _only_ spiritually\n(observe the _only_), let him be anathema.\u201d  The Church of England\nreplied, \u201cThe body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper\n_only_ after an heavenly and spiritual manner.\u201d  Rome said, \u201cIf any one\nshall say that faith _alone_ is a sufficient preparation for receiving\nthe Lord\u2019s Supper, let him be anathema.\u201d  The Church of England replied,\n\u201cThe mean,\u201d _i.e._, the only mean \u201cwhereby the Body of Christ is received\nand eaten in the supper, is faith.\u201d  Pages of other passages might be\nquoted had I time, but these are enough to show the real point at issue.\nRome taught that the sign was transubstantiated into the thing signified,\nand so ceased to be a sign as it became a living Saviour, localised on\nthe altar with body, soul, and even bones and nerves.  The Church of\nEngland taught that the risen Lord is \u201cin heaven and not here,\u201d that the\nsign remains a material, visible sign, and that the grace is a spiritual\ngrace.  So that, as is well said in the homily, \u201cThe meat we seek for in\nthis supper is spiritual food; and nourishment of our soul, a heavenly\nrefection, and not earthly; an invisible meat and not carnal.\u201d  And\nagain, \u201cLook up with faith upon the body and blood of thy God, thou\nmarvel with reverence, thou touch it with the mind, then receive it with\nthe hand of thine heart, and thou take it fully with thy inward man.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n(4.)\u2014_The Final Completeness of the one Propitiation_.\n\nWe hear a great deal in modern times of the mass.  The Church of England\ncalls the holy sacrament \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Supper or Holy Communion.\u201d  But some\nfaithless sons of hers call it \u201cthe mass,\u201d and some amiable men are so\nenamoured of visible unity that they actually memorialize the Archbishop\nfor a recognized toleration of all the paraphernalia of what the\nReformers used to call \u201cmassing priests.\u201d  Now let us clearly understand\nwhat is the real point of the controversy respecting the mass.  It is\nassociated in people\u2019s minds with the Eastward position, and with\ncandles, with incense, with chasubles and tunicles, with thurifers,\nacolytes, and priests, &c., &c., &c.  But it was not for such things as\nthese that our martyrs died.  They are all bad enough, but in themselves\nthey were not worth dying for.  They died for a truth, and the great\ntruth for which they died was the complete, final, everlasting\nsufficiency of the one Divine Sacrifice for sin.  It was this that put\nthe Church of Rome and the Church of England into direct and\nirreconcilable antagonism.  It was not till the year A.D. 1562 that Rome\ndrew up her decrees on this subject, so that in this instance England was\nfirst.  Our Reformers were well acquainted with all that was being taught\nby Rome, and so drew up the noble and uncompromising words of article\nxxxi. in the year A.D. 1552:\u2014\u201cThe offering of Christ _once_ made is that\nperfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of\nthe whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other\nsatisfaction for sin but that _alone_.  Wherefore the sacrifices of\nmasses, in the which, it was commonly said, that the priest did offer\nChrist for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,\nwere blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.\u201d  Well spoken words were\nthose, burning words from glowing hearts.  Those men knew the value of a\nfinished, complete, all-sufficient, and final propitiation by the Son of\nGod, and their trumpets gave no uncertain sound as they swept to the\nwinds the man-made fiction of a propitiatory sacrifice in the mass.  And\nit was in direct opposition to these noble words that Rome decreed, \u201cIf\nany man shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is not propitiatory, and\nought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins,\npunishments, satisfaction, and other necessities, let him be anathema;\u201d\n(Sep. xxii.\u20133), and thereby taught that there was a necessity for some\nfurther propitiatory sacrifice; and that the remission of sin is not\ngranted, as England had declared it was, through the one complete, final,\nand all-sufficient propitiation and that alone; but that for the\nremission of sins and punishments there is required a continuation of\nsacrifice in the mass.\n\nIt would be a very easy thing to shew how all the other fictions of Rome\nmust melt away if these four great truths are established in the heart.\nLet them be known in their power, and all the rest, mariolatry, saint\nworship, purgatory, priestly absolution as a means of forgiveness of sin,\nand all the complicated network of superstition will disappear of\nthemselves; but for that I have no time now, for I must hasten to that\nwhich seems to be the great object of the Committee in the selection of\nthe subject, the practical bearing of these blessed truths on the\nspiritual life of all classes in the Church.  What, then, is that\npractical bearing of these great and most important principles?  Is it\npossible to gather them together, as it were, into one focus and to sum\nup the result in one simple proposition?  I believe it is, and that the\npractical result of the whole matter it this, that on these distinctive\nprinciples we are brought face to face with God himself, and that there\nis nothing intermediate between God and the sinner, so that the whole\nresult may be summed up in two very simple words.  \u201cNothing between.\u201d\n\nObserve for a few moments how this result follows from every one of the\nfour points.\n\nAre we earnestly desiring truth? and do we long to know the revelation of\nGod respecting the way of life?  We are not called to search for it in\nthat vast bundle of hay, the unanimous consent of the fathers, or to\napply to a priest to convey to us an authoritative interpretation even of\npassages which the Church has never interpreted, but we are taught to go\nstraight to the fountain-head of truth at it wells up from God himself,\nand as He has given it in His own inspired Word.  We are not dependent on\nwhat man tells us of God\u2019s revelation, but we go direct to the revelation\nitself.  We do not rely on any intermediate authority who may discolour\nthe truth as a painted window discolours the sunbeam, but we look\nstraight at the truth itself in all its brilliant purity, and, though\nsometimes we may be dazzled by its brilliancy, we rejoice in the fact\nthat there is _nothing between_.\n\nAre we anxious on the subject of our acceptance with God? and asking the\nquestion, How can a man be justified with God?  We are again brought face\nto face with Himself.  We are not called to look _outside_ for any\nsacerdotal act to introduce us to God, or even _inside_ for any work of\nthe Holy Spirit in our own hearts to recommend us to His mercy.  But\nwithout strength, without godliness, sinners, and even enemies, we are\npermitted in His boundless mercy to receive the reconciliation, to throw\nourselves, with _nothing between_, into the arms of Him who has redeemed\nus, and as we are, and just as we are, trust Him at once for a full,\ncomplete, and all-sufficient justification before God.\n\nAre we longing to live feeding on the Lord Jesus Christ, and nourished by\nthat which in the sixth chapter of St. John he sometime describes as the\nbread of life, and sometimes as his body and blood?  Again we are taught\nthat for that sacred food and sustenance we must be brought into direct\nand immediate contact with himself.  We are not to look for any mystical\nchange in the elements supposed to be accomplished by some miraculous\npower in a priest, or suppose that it is Christ in the elements that is\nthe real food of the soul when hungering and thirsting after life.  But\nwe are taught that it is the soul _itself_ that feeds on Christ\n_himself_, and so enjoys his promise, \u201cHe that cometh to me shall never\nhunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.\u201d\n\nAnd lastly, does the soul tremble under the consciousness of sin?  Sin of\nthe nature?  Sin of the heart?  Sin of the thought?  Sin of the act?  Sin\nof the whole man and every part of him?  Does the horrid, dreadful\nthought of sin rise up as an impassable barrier between the\nconscience-stricken sinner and the holiness of God?  Once more the great\nprinciple of a complete and final propitiation proclaims without reserve\nthe joyful tidings that in Christ Jesus there is _nothing between_, that\nthe veil of the temple is rent from the top to the bottom, and that now\nthere stands open a new and living way leading direct to the mercy seat\nof God.  To remove that awful barrier of unforgiven sin, we need no\nsaints, no masses, no purgatorial fire.  We need no priests to make a\npropitiatory offering by what he claims as his sacerdotal power.  As\nbelievers in the Lord Jesus Christ we have received the reconciliation\nfrom the Son of God himself.  It is his own blood that was shed, and his\nown hand that has given the pardon.  And, though Satan may accuse, and\nconscience convict, though it may seem impossible to our own judgment\nthat such as we are should ever be permitted to find fellowship with God,\nwe may thank him with profound thanksgiving that he has removed the curse\nby bearing it himself upon the cross, and may venture to draw near in the\nwords of that most incomparable hymn\u2014\n\n    Just as I am, thy love unknown\n    Has broken every barrier down,\n    Now to be thine, and thine alone,\n                O Lamb of God, I come.\n\nWhatever, then, we take as our starting point, we are brought to the same\nconclusion.  NOTHING BETWEEN.  From whichever point of the compass we\nbegin, whether from the Scriptures, or justification, or the spirituality\nof the sacrament, or the full and finished Atonement, in every case we\nare led to the same conclusion.  Everything intermediate between the Soul\nand the Saviour is swept away for ever, and with nothing between\u2014nothing\nto hide the truth while claiming to make it plain, or to hinder the\napproach while pretending to help it\u2014we are brought face to face with the\nLord Jesus Christ himself; and being pardoned through his perfect\npropitiation, and accepted in his perfect righteousness, we can say as\nSt. John did, \u201cTruly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son\nJesus Christ.\u201d","title":"\"Nothing Between\": The Special Doctrines Vindicated at the Reformation as Bearing upon the Spiritual Life of the Church","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":3311}