« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
with horror? Is it nothing to rescue her from the hard names which interpreters of prophecy have put on her, as an idolatress and an enemy of God, when she is deceived rather than a deceiver?'
"I also said:-'She virtually substitutes an external ritual for moral obedience; penance for penitence, confession for sorrow, profession for faith, the lips for the heart; such at least is her system as understood by the many.'
"Also I said in the same paper :Rome has robbed us of high principles which she has retained herself, though in a corrupt state. When we left her, she suffered us not to go in the beauty of holiness, we left our garments and fled.'
"6. In 1834, I also used of certain doctrines of the Church of Rome, the epithets unscriptural,' 'profane,' 'impious,' bold,' unwarranted,' blasphemous,' 'gross,'' monstrous,' 'cruel,' 'administering deceitful comfort,' and 'unauthorised,' in Tract 38. (I do not mean to say that I had not a definite meaning in every one of these epithets, or that I did not weigh them before I used them. ....But I withdrew the whole passage several years ago.
"7. I said in 1837 of the Church of Rome : In truth she is a Church beside herself, abounding in noble gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use them religiously; crafty, obstinate, wilful, malicious, cruel, unnatural, as madmen are. Or, rather, she may be said to resemble a demoniac, possessed with principles, thoughts, and tendencies not her own, in outward form and in outward powers what God made her; but ruled within by an inexorable spirit, who is sovereign in his management over her, and most subtle and most successful in the use of her gifts. Thus, she is her real self only in name, and till God vouchsafe to restore her, we must treat her as if she were that evil one which governs her.
"8. In 1837, I also said in a Review : -The second and third Gregories appealed to the people against the Emperor for a most unjustifiable object, and in apparently a most unjustifiable way. They became rebels, to establish image worship. However, even in this transaction, we trace the original principle of Church power, though miserably defaced and perverted, whose form
'Had yet not lost All her original brightness, nor appeared Less than Archangel ruined and the ex
It was not the breath of princes, or the smiles of a court, which fostered the stern and lofty spirit of Hildebrand and Innocent. It was the neglect of self, the renunciation of worldly pomp and ease, the appeal to the people.' I must observe, however, upon this passage, that no reference is made in it (the idea is shocking) to the subject of Milton's lines, who ill answers to the idea of purity and virtue defaced, of which they speak. An application is made of them to a subject which I considered, when I so wrote, to befit them better, viz. the Roman Church as viewed in a certain exercise of her power in the person of two Popes.
Perhaps I have made other statements in a similar tone, and that, again, when the statements themselves were unexceptionable and true. If you ask me how an individual could venture, not simply to hold, but to publish, such views of an communion so ancient, so wide-spreading, so fruitful in saints, I answer, that I said to myself, I am not speaking my own words, I am but following almost a consensus of the divines of my Church. They have ever used the strongest language against Rome, even the most able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into their system. While I say what they say, I am safe. Such views, too, are necessary for our position.' Yet I have reason to fear still that such language is to be ascribed, in no small measure, to an impetuous temper, a hope of approving myself to persons' respect, and a wish to repel the charge of Romanism.'"
The extracts cited by Mr. Newman from the Tracts, and Tractarian publications, comprise the strongest passages which the more moderate or politic defenders of those publications have for ten years been adducing as proofs that the Tractators evince no partiality for the Papal apostacy. If all these passages stood unaltered and unrepealed, they would not prove this point; for, taking the publications as a whole, and several of these passages with their context, there is far more of eulogy than reproach.
But be the censure what it may, the strongest portions of it were "withdrawn several years ago;" and the whole is withdrawn now; with the acknowledgment that the writer was not speaking his own words, and that such
and the Dean of Salisbury.
views were necessary for the position in which the Tractators then stood. They were writing "Tracts for the Times; prudence was necessary; it was desirable that they should appear to throw themselves into the system of the divines of the Church of England, in order to repel the charge of Romanism; for the age was not ripe for full-blown disclosures. Well might Froude upbraid his colleagues for such "reserve" and time-serving.
The Dean of Salisbury sets some of the particulars which we have above alluded to in so true and discriminating a light, that we must find space for another extract.
"The writers whom I am opposing, claim the merit of an improved and altered state of sentiment and conduct, and of zeal and exertion, in the Church; and I am far from wishing to detract from what may be sound and useful in their labours. My contest with them is not so much as to the extent of their influence, whatever it may be, or the amount of their success, so far as it may have proved beneficial, as with regard to the quality of their instructions, and the tendency of their proceedings-and my contention and my conviction is thisthat by admitting a false principle, respecting the rule of faith, they have introduced and accredited a system of religion, resembling, indeed, to a certain extent, what is ancient, but at variance at once with the inspired standard of primitive Christian truth, and with the reformed doctrine of our Church; and productive of effects specious and externally fair, and commendable in the eyes of men, rather than of what is sound and spiritual, and really profitable to mankind.
We find, therefore, in the publications,
regard to the crucified Saviour, without
studied depreciation of preaching, and
and ceremonies, some of which are tri-
the one are dependent on the character
"In these features of the traditional school of divinity, I trace not any close and primitive resemblance to that pure Christianity which, as the Apostle assures us, at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,' by whose gracious inspiration they recorded it in the New Testament, for obedience to the faith among all nations ;' and which, rescued from the ignorance, the superstition, and the corruption of ages, was restored and embodied in the reformed Liturgy and primitive polity of the Church established in these realms.",
We have several other anti-Tractarian publications on our table, which we have not yet noticed, but we must for the present conclude our protracted remarks. One word only as to the weapons with which these awful delusions ought to be encountered. The chief is "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Prayer also is a powerful weapon; for will not he who purchased to himself a Church with his most precious blood, listen
to the sorrowful sighings of those who grieve over its desolations? All cannot write learnedly, or argue controversially; but all the faithful in Christ Jesus can pray. Further, fill the sack with wheat, that there may be no room for chaff. To rise and walk was the best reply to the paradox that there was no such thing as motion; and to preach "Christ crucified" unreservedly, will best refute all the objections against that Scriptural practice and exhortation. We would also add, Beware of reaction. Let not the
faithful member or minister of the Anglican Church be goaded to any extreme, such as either making too much or too little of rites or sacraments, because he is either urged or taunted; but let him adhere to his principles soberly and Scripturally; and the same remark applies to questions of doctrine. Let the clergy preach (in one sense) as if nothing had happened; except as what has happened should lead them to preach more clearly, pointedly, Scripturally, and experimentally.
NATIONAL SCOTCH CHURCH CONTROVERSY.
1. The Harp on the Willows, or the Captivity of the Church of Scotland, addressed to the people of England. By the Rev. JAMES HAMILTON, Minister of the National Scotch Church, Regent Square, London. Tenth Thousand.
2. Present State of the Church of Scotland: a Letter addressed to the Most Noble the Marquis of Cholmondeley. By the Rev. J. CUMMING, M.A., Minister of the Scotch Church, Crown Court, Covent Garden. London, 1843.
We have purposely abstained from writing much upon the unhappy controversy which has for several years been agitating the National Church of Scotland; not because we did not take much interest in the discussion, or because we did not think we understood somewhat of its bearings; but for such reasons as the following. As members of the Church of England, we did not wish to obtrude without necessity into the affairs of another communion; knowing how invidious, and often irritating, is the interference of third persons in such questions. Again, we have enough on our hands respecting urgent questions at home. Further, we were not sure that we could get our readers to wade through a heavy mass of facts and documents, and intricate discussions upon them. We had also a feeling of delicacy in touching upon the Scottish National
Church at the present moment, for the following reasons. On the one hand, as between Episcopacy and Presbytery, we have a very decided opinion; and as our Northern friends think it their duty to set up "National Scotch Churches' in England, of which there are six in London, they cannot fairly accuse us of want of charity that we wish well to the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and should be glad to see it increase and multiply, and peacefully and auspiciously become the legal and voluntary National Church in the Northern as in the Southern part of the island. Yet, on the other hand, there is much in the history of the Episcopal Church in Scotland calculated to excite pain in the mind of every sound member of the Anglican Church. We do not allude to the barbarous dragoonings inflicted upon the Presbyterians in the days.
of Charles the Second and his successor; for though carried on in the name of episcopacy, the Episcopal Church was not responsible for them; and they were but a brief parenthesis in the long history of bigotry, intolerance, injustice, and cruelty with which the Presbyterians of Scotland had proscribed and maltreated what they called "black prelacy." But our pain in reviewing the history of the Episcopal Church in Scotland is caused by its unhappily Laudean (or, to use a modern term, Tractarian) character. Our Scottish Episcopalian brethren affect much superiority over the Church of England. "We escaped the malign influence," says the Bishop of Glasgow in his Charge last year, which oppressed the Church of England; and he and his fellow prelates assert that their church has always held "the doctrines which have been revived in the South;" that is, the peculiar doctrines of the British Critic and the Tracts for the Times. And they speak truly; for though they have the essentials of a Scriptural Episcopal Church, they have added to them some of the fond inventions of Rome. We have often stated, and mourned over, this unhappy fact, and therefore will not now delay our argument with an incidental discussion. The Scottish Episcopal Prayer-Book, though not actually drawn up by Laud, is Laudean in its complexion. The Communion service, where it differs from ours, is of a sacrificial character. The first sentence selected for the Offertory is Gen. iv. 3, 4, where God has respect to Abel's animal sacrifice, and not to Cain's offering of the fruits of the ground; intimating that more is intended than alms and oblations in any sense which the English service will bear. And this notion is more clearly set forth in the Prayer of Consecration and Oblation; where the Presbyter, after taking
CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 64.
the bread and wine into his hands, and reciting the words of the institution of the Lord's Supper, says: "Which we now offer unto Thee (these words being printed in large capitals to mark their significance) "that they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly-beloved Son." The formula of distribution is the first sentence of our own office; but omitting the second, "Take and eat (or drink) this in remembrance," and "feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving. These expressions enable the Scottish divines to affirm that their Church teaches directly and explicitly, what the Tractarians wish to fasten upon ours by implication, candidly lamenting that it is only by implication that they can do so.
Now when we consider these things, and also the unscriptural bigotry of too many of the Scottish bishops and clergy, and of some among ourselves, in declaring that none of the churches of the Reformation, except our own and its branches, are churches,―that they are only communities, not communions ;-and that the National Church of Scotland is "Samaria," we have been unwilling at this crisis to enter upon a question in which we feel confident the National Church of Scotland, acting by its constituted authorities, is wrong and much to blame. The calmest judgment to this effect might be, and has been, represented as an utterance of "black prelacy." Tractarians and non-Tractarians, it is alleged, are marvellously consentient when the National Church of Scotland stands up for what the members of the Anglican Church do not consider either Scriptural or expedient. Do we speak too strongly of the language which has been used upon this subject? Lest we should be charged with doing so, we will cite a few sentences from the tractate of that highlygifted and pious minister of the
Scottish National Church, Mr. Cumming, who says:
"In the popular brochures of the party, Sir James Graham is likened to Claverhouse; our Queen to the Queen of Madagascar; and the Court of Session composed of venerable Judges, whose very names are passports to any communion, many of them members of the Church, is constantly spoken of in terms of disrespect
"If I tell them the clergy of the Church of England differ from them, they answer they are prelatists, and their opinion is worth nothing; if I say eight hundred clergy of their own church dissent from the views of them, the four hundred and sixty Non-Intru
sionists, they reply, the eight hundred are dead Moderates ;-if I urge the fact, that all the orthodox Dissenters of England and Scotland are against them, they answer, they are Voluntaries ;-if I refer to Sir James Graham, he is Claverhouse; if to your Lordship and other Peers, of whose deep interest in the progress of vital Christianity there is and can be no doubt, these are not
Presbyterians; — if I speak of Lord Aberdeen and the whole Conservative party, they are Erastians;-if I quote the opinion of Lord John Russell and his side of the House, they are enemies of the Church. In short, they allege that they are right, and that Parliament, and Peers, and Judges, and Courts of Law, and Episcopalians, Moderates, and Dissenters, and Conservatives, and Whigs are all wrong. They claim to be the interpreters of law, the expositors of statutes; and they will neither obey the law, nor leave the Establishment in
which the supremacy of law must be
We had no wish to place ourselves, without necessity, in any of the invidious positions to which we have alluded. We did not desire at this period of strife to write one word which might seem to bear heavily upon the established Church of Scotland, which we believe to have been abundantly blessed of God, and with which we desire to be at peace; though not abating any one particular of those matters in which we differ from it.
But we are forced into the discussion. It is no longer, if ever it was, a merely Scottish question.
It has been carried by appeal to the highest court of British adjudication; and it has been also considered deliberatively by the United Legislature. Further, our Northern neighbours challenge us to examine the case upon its merits. We might have copied the titles of a score, and more, of publicalishmen as well as Scotsmen; but tions, which are an appeal to Engnot intending to burden our readers with innumerable details, the leading principle being all that we think it needful to discuss, we have taken, as an apology for our remarks, two tractates, published in London by ministers of the Scotch National Church, one on each side of the question.* Mr. Hamilton, a zealous Non-Intrusionist, says: "I have great hope from the honesty of Englishmen: the English are a just people, and if they understood our case would do us justice." Mr. Cumming, who writes on the other side, addresses his remarks to "the clergy and laity of the Church of England ;" because, he says, "Garbled and ex-parte appeals have been made, through the press, to English Christians, and circulated by post to every corner of the kingdom.' Our copy of Mr. Hamilton's pamphlet, referred to by Mr. Cumming, was not sent us "by post," but was obligingly presented to us in an "Omnibus." This is smart canvassing; and after such appeals we need not have offered any apology for our "intrusion.”
We have written of "the question" in the singular number; for
In London, there are six Scottish Churches. The ministers of Swallow Street, St. Andrew's, and Crown Court, are opposed to the Convocationists, and remain in communion with the Established Church of Scotlaud, of which they are licentiates. The ministers of the other three Churches, Regent Square, River Terrace, and London Wall, vigorously support the Non-In