by Rev. Donald Maclean, Glasgow
A Question of Conscience, by Charles Davis. Hodder & Stoughton, Pbk. 8/-.
The Roman Catholic Church at the present time is having serious internal trouble due to conflicts arising between those who wish to hold to the status quo and those who wish to introduce reforms of one description or another. When Charles Davis, one of the most prominent theologians of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain, intimated his break with his Church on Wednesday, 21st December 1966, the event caused considerable comment both in the religious and secular press.
When a priest of the Roman Church leaves that body, the reason very often is that he has been awakened by the Spirit of God to a sense of his sins and has fled to Christ for salvation through that faith which is the gift of God. To such an one, the Word of God has become inexpressibly precious. In the light of the doctrines of that Word, he sees the errors and blasphemies of Rome and leaves that Church to seek the truth elsewhere.
When people leave the Church in which they were brought up and nurtured, they often feel compelled to write a book to explain why they have taken this step. Many of the priests referred to above have done this. Their accounts have sought to display the wonderful grace of God in bringing them out of darkness into His marvellous light.
This book gives in considerable detail the reasons which caused Charles Davis to break with the Church in which he had been such a prominent and well-respected figure. The method adopted by him has been to give an account of his pilgrimage from the time when he began to entertain doubts as to the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church being classified “Christian” until he finally separated. The disadvantage of this method is that it does not present a systematic refutation of Roman Catholic errors but only deals with the particular points which impinged upon the conscience of the writer. The advantages, on the other hand, are many, as every point is based upon the personal experience of this priest and has been thoroughly thought out by him as affecting him personally.
Charles Davis, who is evidently a scholar of considerable ability, writes with clarity and conviction, and he disposes with considerable ease of the accusation that his real reason for leaving the Roman church was to get married.
His arguments against accepting the credibility of that Church as a Christian body are weighty from the point of view from which he writes. He rejects the papacy and now regards the attempts to make out that the authority of the Pope is being reduced by the Bishops, as dishonest. The whole institution he regards as contrary to freedom in any true sense of the term. It seems his views are widely shared among educated Romanists who do not find the courage to break away as he has done. His whole treatment of the subject shows a state of affairs in the church which can afford no comfort to Pope Paul, and dispels the idea of unity which is so often claimed as such a distinctive feature of this Church.
There is, however, a fly in this particular apothecary’s ointment. As one reads and appreciates the intellectual struggles, one realises that there is a spiritual lack. This is the great tragedy with many educated Roman Catholics. While they know from the obvious inconsistencies that many of the views of their church are wrong, they lack the spiritual light and understanding to detect the real errors. Despite his scholarly abilities, his theological knowledge, his persuasive method of presentation, and his courage in taking the step of separation, it is to be feared that this is the case with Charles Davis.
For instance, he obviously does not see anything wrong with the blasphemy of the mass. He says “after celebrating mass for years as a priest I have not been able to cease to do so without a painful wrench and a sense of spiritual denudation.” (Page 230). He also accepts the modern conception of the relation between the Visible Church and the World, by which the church is no longer an enclosed sacred area within a profane world. The new Theology calls for the abolition of the distinctions between the secular and the sacred, but this is not scriptural. Christ himself declares of His people in union to himself, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” (John, Ch. 17, 16).
While Charles Davis seeks freedom from the ecclesiastical tyranny of Rome, he does not possess the freedom with which Christ Himself makes free. Those who are his disciples indeed begin with the Word of God by which they were born again and hear His voice saying to them, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8, v. 31-32). Here we come to the crux of the whole matter, for we read that Charles Davis says, “The Bible is a unique and indispensable witness to God’s revelation, which culminated in Christ. It is not, however, free from the limitations of its cultural context, or rather contexts, nor is it entirely without error. . . . At the same time, it (the Bible) is a human and historical document subject as such to inevitable imperfections and limitations.” (Page 215). This false view of Scripture gives the clue as to why in this book there is an absence of a sense of sin and a failure to realise that the so-called dynamic freedom of the human spirit working in humanity as such, is blind to the glory of God.
Charles Davis has not joined any other church since he left the Roman Church. He is an instance of one who feels that, because of his liberal views, he can no longer endure the frustrations or the falsity of Roman Catholic teachings and practices. He has accordingly severed his connection but has still a long way to go before he spiritually embraces the truth as it is in Jesus.
Farewell to Anglicanism, by H. M. Carson. Pbk. 8/-. (Obtainable from Free Presbyterian Bookroom).
Rev. Herbert Carson, B.A., B.D., seceded from the Church of England in 1965 along with other Evangelicals who thought the time had come when they could no longer remain in that body and retain a clear conscience. Mr Carson has given an account of his views in this book. Like Charles Davis, he has adopted the method of personal history with its consequent advantages and disadvantages. Unlike him, however, there is every sign that Mr Carson is a man of truly pious principles. He writes well and evidently regards the Word of God as the true touchstone to which all opinions in matters of doctrine and experience must be brought and tested. In the main, we are in sympathy with Mr Carson’s position in leaving the Church of England. Indeed, in a recent letter one of their leaders wrote to the present reviewer, “And if you, yourself, were an Anglican now I should expect to see you out of the Church in five minutes!” We are not at all happy, however, with the direction in which Mr Carson has gone since he left the Church of England. As many Evangelicals in that Church will have read his book and as many of them are undoubtedly exercised over the question of secession, it would be a grave mistake to think the only alternative to Anglicanism is to become an Anabaptist and an Independent. There is a much better way, and, with this in view, we would like to deal with some points raised by Mr Carson.
Mr Carson found the principle of the Establishment one to which he could no longer subscribe. He writes with deep feeling on the issue because he “links that concept with the most heart-breaking experiences of my ministry”. The Anglican Establishment being Erastian, we would agree with much that Mr Carson writes on the matter but there is no sign that he grasps that there is a scripturally-grounded doctrine of Establishment which avoids the errors of Erastianism. This principle, which is clearly taught in the Westminster Confession, insists indeed that the Civil Magistrate has no authority in the administration of the Word, Sacraments and Church Discipline, but equally insists that he has the authority and duty to support the cause of Christ in his position of authority and influence. In other words, he should acknowledge Christ as the King of Nations as well as King of Zion. Mr Carson appears to take the position of Voluntaryism, which virtually denies the obligation of Civil Governments to uphold, defend and advance the Cause of Christ in the world. This leads to the conclusion that the only relation which should exist between the Church and the State is that of entire separation. About one of the passages quoted by Mr Carson (1 Tim. 2, 1-2), he says “Paul is directing that earnest prayer should be offered for those in authority, that Christians may lead a quiet and peaceable life”. He then goes on to say that Paul’s encouragement to prayer is rooted in his contention that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Mr Carson passes by the nature of the peaceable life desired by the Christian according to Paul’s prayer. It is to be “in all godliness and honesty”. In other words, the prayer for the Civil Magistrate has in view not only matters of honesty but also godliness both of which the Civil Magistrate is to countenance and promote. On this matter Mr Carson betrays the anabaptism which runs through his whole book and departs from the Reformed Confessions.
Mr Carson has become an anti-Paedobaptist. He denies the right of baptism to children of those who are members of the Visible Church. His arguments are the usual ones expressed by such as hold this error, and he has also been obviously influenced by the unscriptural principle of indiscriminate baptism practised in the Church of England. His arguments will seem very weak to any Paedobaptist who administers the sacrament in a Church which observes scriptural discipline.
“Significantly,” he writes, “the question (i.e. of child baptism) was burning in my mind at the very time I was facing the fundamental problem of the Church. It was the Biblical doctrine of the Church, as I understood it, that ultimately forced me out of the Church of England.” This then is the core of the whole matter. Mr Carson swings away from the Episcopal conception of the Church to the other extreme of Independency. He shows no evidence of making any attempt to consider the Presbyterian view of the Church as outlined in the Westminster Confession. It is possible that the low spiritual state of Presbyterianism in England prevented him giving this aspect of the subject the consideration it deserves.
There seems to be a general weakness amongst Evangelicals in England on the nature of the Church. That Mr Carson is not the only one in this category is shown by a recent publication of the British Evangelical Council, from the pen of Dr D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, called “What is the Church?” In his most unsatisfactory handling of this essential subject, he commences by saying that he is “not going to deal with the question of the visible and invisible Church”. Having evaded this elementary but most necessary distinction he proceeds to deal with the Church in the sense of the Church invisible in terms of the above-named distinction. The failure to observe this distinction leads to a lot of absurdities. For instance, he says, “So the whole notion of a State Church is a complete contradiction of the basic statement of the New Testament about the nature of the Church”. Naturally, if you are speaking of the invisible nature of the Church and say that the true citizenship of the Lord’s people is in heaven, the conception of a nation recognising Christ as head of the nation as well as Head of the Church does not arise. If on the other hand, you are considering the relationship between State and Church from the point of view of the visible Church, the matter is a completely different one, as we have already indicated. A similar and more serious state of confusion arises in his remarks about confessions.
His ignoring of the distinction between the Church visible and invisible leads him to denigrate the value of creeds. He states that even when people profess to believe in these creeds, such as the Westminster Confession, there is no guarantee that they are Christians, etc. He maintains that when you are looking at the Church you are looking at a body of people and not paper declarations. If, however, we find a body of people claiming to be Christians then we are seeing the Church visible. In order to test that this collection of people is truly the Church surely we must discover whether or not they believe the Christian Faith? How are we going to discover this unless they have a creed stating exactly what they believe? Later on in this booklet he has a great deal to say about the necessity for sound doctrine. “Look at the false teaching round about us. How can I be safe with regard to these unless I have got an objective Standard?” (Page 2.) What then is to be the objective standard? Is it to be the Bible? Thousands claim to have the Bible as their objective standard, and the authority of the Bible has been claimed for all kinds of error. A creed informs all of the way the particular branch of the visible Church views the teachings of Scripture. Such a creed can be examined and a firm conclusion drawn as to the purity or otherwise of the Church. Bound up with this, creeds are absolutely necessary for the proper administration of Church discipline, especially in the case of office-bearers. Independency, with its jealous regard for the autonomy of the local congregation, is not conducive to the scriptural administration of Church discipline. The absence of any forms of appeal, with the subsequent objective review of decisions by parties outside the congregation, has a tendency to allow local prejudices to have too big a say in matters of discipline. Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones’ particular handling of the doctrine of the Church raises many problems and solves none.
To return to Mr Carson. One of his strangest ideas is the notion that Independency and Anabaptism form the best basis for union between Evangelicals. The jealous regard for autonomy already referred to in Independent circles, however, seems to militate completely against the idea of unity. The bonds of fellowship outside the congregation generally take the form of Councils or Fellowships, loose in structure, and without any real authority either to correct abuses or to encourage the activities of true piety. The scriptural concept of Presbytery being ignored, one can hardly expect another system to succeed. The Anabaptist position, too, militates against true unity. A system whose views of Baptism would exclude from its communion Luther, Calvin, Knox, all the Reformers and Westminster Divines as well as a vast number of professing Christians can hardly have strong claims to form the basis of true unity. It was extremely sad to read of Mr Carson, himself, being re-baptized in Welwyn Evangelical Church shortly after the announcement of his resignation from the Church of England.
As was mentioned at the outset, we are in the main in agreement with Mr Carson leaving the Church of England. It would be a sad mistake, however, if Anglican Evangelicals thought that Independency and Anabaptism form the only alternative to Anglicanism. We recommend to such as are considering the question of secession a prayerful study of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Let them remember that the majority of the Westminster Divines were Englishmen. They will find in the Confession the true view of the Establishment Principle; a sound definition of the Church visible and invisible, in which the visible church includes those who profess the true religion together with their children; a scripturally-based doctrine of the sacraments; and the most comprehensive declaration of scriptural doctrine drawn up since the days of the Apostles. They should also recall that this Confession is an ecumenical document and was intended to be the basis for a British Church. If there is to be an ecumenism of the true kind, where is there a better document upon which to base such an expectation?