Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

II.

PRIEST'S RELIGION.

HUMAN AUTHORITY AND INVENTION versus CONSCIENCE AND THE BIBLE.

The Scriptures are the only standard of Christian faith and practice: every one is at liberty to examine them; but no one is at liberty to decline this examination: and though we may receive the help of others, we may not rest on their authority, (which is man-worship ;) nor receive as religion, what is not in the Scriptures, (which is willworship.)

THE CONVERTS TO ROME:-WHERE EDUCATED?

AN APPEAL TO CHURCHMEN.

IN the unceasing conflict between truth and error, commenced by our Redeemer, revived again and again into greater earnestness, it becomes every one, how small soever his influence, to employ it on the right side; and to take his position in the immediate forms of contest carried on in his own age.

It is not enough that we adopt those truths whose validity has been settled by the arguments and sufferings of our forefathers; we must seek to extend and enlarge the patrimony for our successors: we must visit Christ in prison, acknowledge his word when it is overlooked or despised, and not merely passively receive what is already acknowledged and honoured.

It cannot be a matter of indifference to a patriotic Christian what opinions and practices shall form a part of the national religion; it is a shame, especially to such as have abandoned the nationally established worship, either to be ignorant of its character, or to be backward in adducing reasons for this departure from established forms and systems.

But when we further consider the momentous consequence of widespread religious error,-" when it increases to more ungodliness,"-swells into still more palpable superstitions, the "time for silence" is gone, and the "time to speak" out has arrived. By seizing upon this time, we at least deliver our own souls, and do our part towards the deliverance of others.

With many it is fashionable to satisfy themselves with severe invectives against Puseyite Clergymen, who by their Evangelical brethren are said to be dishonestly "eating our bread;" and hence, the cure for all evils, is in silencing these men. Why then are they not silenced? Because they speak with authority, having their Prayer-book on their side.

Here are the unquestionable credentials: and therefore we must admit the legality; but deny the truth of their doctrines. We must examine the constitution and fabric of the Church of England itself.

Whilst all Protestants are admitted to a license of invective against the Church of Rome; it is presumed by many, (and even some among Dissenters,) that in our opposition to what we regard as the errors of the Church of England, we are to adopt a softened medium, called sometimes charity; at other times, moderation.

Though truth is of so stubborn a nature, that it will not bend to any arch or angle, but is a straight line, and in reality, is the only charity. We may speak against Romanists; but not against Romanism: its most palpable form, not its essential spirit.

It is frequently supposed, nay, constantly asserted, by men otherwise professing and advocating charity, that all direct opposition to the doctrines and constitution of the Church of England, is the "hostilities" of “bitter enemies;" thus do men judge others by their own feelings, and bring a moral accusation in answer to even Scriptural arguments.

In this way our Lord himself, and his Apostles, were bitter enemies of all whom they condemned.

It is wonderful how men regard earnestness in the advocacy of unwelcome truths, as stirring up the waters of strife, and how readily they forget that in these respects our Lord came not to send peace, but a sword on the earth;-a sword that was never to be sheathed, the scabbard of truce with error, being utterly cast away.

The forgetfulness of the duty of contention for the truth; and willingness to stigmatize as evil, all who contend earnestly against cherished errors, has been of late well rebuked by one who having tried the ministry of the Church of England for fifty years, gives his solemn testimony against it.

--

But

"Most painfully am I aware of the suspicions so frequently awakened in what pass for religious minds, under circumstances of remonstrance and reproof. This is no novelty. The most faithful, among the faithful, of the ministers of the seventeenth century wrote, 'I find it impossible to avoid the offending of guilty men. I except those that are willing to know the worst of themselves; and long to know their sins, that they may forsake them. A poor drunkard or swearer will more patiently hear of his sin, than many that we hope are godly, will of theirs. godliness was never made to be the credit of men's sins; nor is sin to be let alone, or well thought of, when it can but get into a godly man. Shall we hate them most, whom we are bound to love most? and shall we shew it by forbearing our plain rebuke, and suffering their sin upon them? It is the sinful unhappiness of some men's minds, that they disaffect them that cross them in their proceedings, and plainly tell them of their faults. And they are ready to judge of the reprover's spirit by their own, and to think that such sharp reproofs proceed from some disaffection to their persons, or partial opposition to the opinions which they hold. . . . But plain dealers are always approved in the end; and the time is at hand, when you shall confess that those were your truest friends. I crave your candid interpretation of my boldness; assuring you, that I obey not the counsel of îny flesh herein, but displease myself

as much as some of you: and had rather have the ease and peace of silence, if it would stand with duty and the Churches' good.'"*

As to the practical basis for a union of candour, (not of a misdirected charity,) the same writer drew up the following amongst other resolutions, which deserve a careful study.

"That we will not defend nor palliate, in any communion with which we are severally connected, neither in any other, under the veil of false candour, known errors, whether of doctrine, discipline, or conventional practice; but rather consider the intrusion and vindication of such evils to be matter, in the first instance, of humiliation and disgrace, and then of scrutiny, with a view to their exposure and rejection.

"That we are convinced of the guilt and peril of ostensibly supporting what, in the interior of our souls, we confess to be indefensible; that we disclaim the pleas of imperfection, prescription, antiquity, ancestral recollection, domestic obligation, and similar modes of defence, although by all parties so frequently advanced as apologies for evident and curable evil; and that we regard all such extenuations, as merely indicating the universal unwillingness of mankind to censure and reform their own cherished institutions. We detect the subtle agencies of the same phronema sarkos-which some do expound the wisdom; some, the sensuality; some, the affection; some the desire of the flesh'-in the disposition of our wayward and selfish nature to deny its inherent depravity, when this corruption manifests itself in intolerance, in suspicious jealousy of beneficial changes, in hard determinations to resist conviction, and in refusing to confess the blemishes and degeneracy of any specific system, if connected with individual interest and credit-all which causes of evil have more or less characterized every Christian society down to the present age of the world, and began to be developed in the early days of the primitive Church itself."+

It is under the defence of such statements and principles that we advance to the consideration of the origin of the recent additions to the ranks of the Papists;-in other words, THE CONVERTS TO ROME,—

WHERE ARE THEY EDUCATED?

By what influences Popery is fostered, that so our efforts may be wisely directed against the real source of the evil.

That there are Evangelical ministers in the Church of England, is not to be doubted; the only question is, ought they to be there, since the Church is not Evangelical: and their presence forms a cloak and apology for upholding a system which agrees with what is considered to be unevangelical?

So much does this hurtful apology and pretext prevail, that many persons take a single Evangelical clergyman as a type of the Church, forgetting the many active Puseyites by whom he may be surrounded; and so are silent against an evil system, because a few good men lend it

their countenance.

Such misplaced goodness, will have much to answer for!

We however in this enquiry, have nothing to do with individuals, but only with a system.

It should be remembered that we are often the least acquainted with

Baxter's Preface to Gildas Salvianus.

The Rev. John Riland, M.A.

that with which we are the most familiar; the habit of looking at things, often prevents our seeing them: hence what is customary and usual to us is never thought of; whilst were it introduced to us for the first time, or were another for the first time to examine it, the subject might appear in a very different light.

Hence many lay members of the Church of England, (who have seriously considered only their Bibles, and such elements of true religion as are presented in connexion with their services;) have never critically examined the peculiar and distinctive doctrines and rites of the Church; they believe and receive just what the majority of Dissenters do, and by the force of passive habit overlook the rest.

Hence they cannot understand, and can scarcely forgive the remonstrances of those who have examined the whole question by a different standard; and whilst they heartily condemn the Puseyite, they are equally warm against the Dissenter, who only joins them in condemning Puseyism. In truth, what we want in order to union of feeling and agreement of principle, is simply to understand each other.

To overleap that mound of prejudice which interested men lay between the laity of the Church and the advocates of dissent; and see that what the one condemns in practice, the other condemns in theory.

To clear up this point as far as lies in our power, and prepare for a candid investigation into those delusions to which men are exposed, in order to a more complete reformation, we shall make good the three following propositions.

1. That in the established formularies of the Church of England, there is sufficient ground for Puseyism.

2. That Puseyism consistently leads to Romanism.

3. That, therefore, the Church needs a Bible reformation, the first part of which will be, the emancipation of the Church from legal bondage, so that the two opposite clerical parties may separate from each other, taking their respective portions of the Prayer-book; while the laity make a new one for themselves.

1. Our first proposition then is, that in the established formularies of of the Church of England, there is sufficient ground for Puseyism.

It is not to be denied but the contradictory elements at work in the Reformation of the English Church, have each left traces in her constitution, and therefore there are parts which an Evangelical may subscribe to, and to which he may give the chief prominence.

But the other parts, more extensive and emphatic, would, if received, perfectly nullify these; just as Christ was of no effect to those who be came circumcised.

Indeed, in the Church of Rome itself, there is room for Evangelicalism, if any of her priests passing by her ritual, should confine their ministrations chiefly to the parts which recognize the redemption by Jesus Christ.

Every truth which we hold, is recognized in some form by the Roman Church; the only fault we can find with her is, that she overlays the truth, with rites, and forms, and superstitious sacraments, which make the truth ofnone effect.

And therefore, in examining any system, we must not consider merely

[blocks in formation]

what truth is in it; but what error; not whether there be "good wheaten bread," but whether poison be introduced.

Now every clergyman at his ordination, declares "that there is nothing in the Prayer Book contrary to the word of God."

This is part of the solemn declaration, without which, no one can minister in the Church of England. Thus do they all endorse everything in that book; and it therefore is what we have to test, as containing the principles and practices of the Puseyites.

The first distinguishing practice of the Puseyites, is "daily morning and evening prayers;" for which, the forms of prayer are especially appointed; as their name imports; as the Rubrics assert; and as the lessons for every day in the month imply.

Another distinguishing practice, is in the especial regard they pay to saints days and holy days; for all which, particular provision is made in the services and regulations of the Prayer Book.

A third distinguishing practice of the Puseyites, against which great outcry is raised by men who uphold the Prayer Book, is that of placing candles on the altar; this is prescribed by the very first Rubric in the Prayer Book; and that book they all say, "containeth nothing contrary to God's word."

Clergymen may be mobbed, villified as dishonest to Protestantism, for these things; but the fact cannot be wiped out of the book; no Evangelical can rail the seal from off his bond."

66

It may be unscriptural, foolish, superstitious, Popish; but there it stands in the Prayer Book; and the following letter in defence of these candles, may be condemned, but it cannot be answered except by putting down the Prayer Book, and taking up the Bible.

"MY DEAR BRETHREN,

66

Having received from an anonymous Donor a Pair of Altar Candlesticks, accompanied with an earnest request that they might be placed on The Altar in St. Paul's Church on Easter Sunday, (two lights on the Altar being moreover enjoined by the Rubric in our Prayer Book,) I do not feel at liberty, were I disposed to do so, to refuse compliance with the Donor's request.

"At the same time, being well aware how strong is the prejudice, from whatever cause arising, against Lights on the Altar, I feel it my duty, (and great will be my pleasure if I succeed,) to endeavour to remove every antagonistic feeling to such ornaments, by proving to you that Lights on the Altar are enjoined by a Rubric in our Prayer Book, sanctioned by Convocation and Act of Parliament.

"The Rubric is as follows: 'And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.' To know then what are the ornaments of the Church which the Prayer Book orders to be in all Churches, we have only to refer to the Act just mentioned, that ratifies the King's injunctions, in which, in the clause against Popish Torches and Tapers before Images and Shrines, we read that Ministers shall suffer from henceforth no Torches nor Candles, Tapers or Images of wax, to be set

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »