Page images
PDF
EPUB

make our neglect of these things, a ground for deserting the Church at the present moment!

3. Next we have a congeries of various matters. "The celebration of divine service by a deacon instead of a priest," was more common fifty years ago than it is now. The "confounding together the three services of Matins, Litany, and Holy Communion," is of old date, and not of our own times. "The introducing modern hymns, and omitting anthems," is a clear improvement, sanctioned by all our bishops." The absence of all musical intonation in the creeds, versicles," &c., is also of old date.

To assign any of these things as a cause for seceding to Rome, is scarcely better than hypocrisy. Mr. Wray knows that they nearly all existed for a century before the late secessions to Rome were thought of, and that no one, in all that century, ever imagined that in any of these things, there could be found the least shadow of a reason for secession. And, as for the allegation, that by neglecting to "intone the creeds," and by "introducing modern hymns, ""the Church has lost its hold on the great mass of the people," it is enough to say, that it is precisely the opposite to the truth. "The great body of the people" have always shewn their attachment to good congregational psalm-singing;-which is as much opposed as possible to the "musical intonation of the creeds, versicles," &c.

4. "Persons are found daring and unscrupulous enough to change the appointed lessons, and to refuse to read the Apocrypha."

Hard words do not strengthen an argument. The rubrics are confused and contradictory;-one of them distinctly ordering, that the Lessons shall be taken " out of the Old and New Testaments." In this uncertainty, those clergymen do well who "refuse the profane and old wives' fables" of the Apocrypha, and read to their people only the pure WORD OF God.

5. "Heresy of the most fearful kind is openly taught." "Holy doctrines of the Gospel, such as the apostolical descent of the clergy, baptismal regeneration, and the real participation of Christ in the Eucharist, are denied."

Mr. Wray is not at liberty to fabricate doctrines of his own, and call them "doctrines of the Gospel," and then to charge "heresy upon all who do not wholly adopt and preach them. The apostolical descent of the clergy," which he calls "a doctrine of the Gospel," is found neither in the Bible, nor in the Prayer-book, nor in the Articles. 66 Baptismal regeneration," and "the real participation of Christ in the Eucharist," are truths believed by all, when speaking of the faithful recipient. But if Mr. Wray means

more than this, and claims "sacramental grace for the unbelieving, then he contradicts the xxvth Article, and is himself much nearer "heresy" than those whom he maligns.

"At

6. Under the next head Mr. Wray is vague and indefinite. our schools the doctrine of the Catechism is denied or explained away." "At the visitation of the sick the consolations of the Church are refused." Are all our schools conducted on one system? Do all the clergy who visit the sick, deal with the penitent in precisely the same mode? How can any answer be made to such charges? All we shall remark, is,-that to make such accusations as these, grounds for secession, or even extenuating circumstances, shews the advocate to be very much at a loss.

There is, however, another and a far more momentous question to be at least adverted to. Mr. Wray ascribes much of his late curate's alienation to a want,-which he depicts as a natural and reasonable one,-of "an authoritative standard of faith." Thus, he says,

"Men of a reverential tone of mind, and longing for unity of faith and practice, and feeling the necessity of some authorized and authoritative expositor of truth, are driven away from us by the keen disgust they feel at our miserable inconsistencies,"

"He often expressed to me, in grief and much perplexity, his difficulty in retaining his confidence in a Church which was unable to maintain any authority as a consistent dogmatic teacher."

"He was willing to sacrifice much for the sake of an authoritative standard of faith."

"Hence the greater necessity that the Church which adopts such a rule, should, without hesitation, profess herself to be THE AUTHORITATIVE EXPOSITOR OF GOD'S WORD, and call upon the people to put implicit confidence in her, as invested with a divine commission."

Now in all these passages, it is clear that Mr. Wray extenuates, and even justifies, his curate in this requirement. But in so doing, he virtually approves of the step which Mr. Wells has taken, and adopts the most effectual means of leading others to follow his example. He teaches his people that they may rightly look for "an authoritative standard,"-" an authoritative expositor." This the Church of England will never afford them;-but the Church of Rome will at least profess to do so. And hence, as the demand is, in Mr. Wray's view, a just and reasonable one, and as their own Church will not offer to provide for them any such "standard" or "expositor,"-it naturally follows that they must feel strongly drawn towards that community where,-and where alone, -this want can be apparently supplied.

With this one sentiment pervading Mr. Wray's Address, we must regard it,-in spite of two or three strong censures of the

Romish system,-as mainly an apology for Mr. Wells,—and an apology tending strongly to produce imitators.

This, however, is merely an objection founded on the tendency of Mr. Wray's reasonings. We have a stronger objection, founded on their intrinsic unsoundness.

Turning his back on the great principle of the Church of England, --that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva"tion; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved "thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be be"lieved as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation: "—(Art. VI.) Mr. Wray agrees with Mr. Wells in requiring "an authorized and authoritative expositor of truth." We object to him, in that

1. Scripture tells us nothing of such an "authoritive expositor." 2. The primitive Church knew nothing of such an "authoritative expositor."

3. The Church of England rejects every such claim or pretension. 4. The Church of Rome, while it puts forward such a claim, possesses, in fact, no such standard or expositor.

[ocr errors]

First, we find the apostles ever appealing to the Scriptures for confirmation of their teaching. And they do this in a reasoning tone,-not authoritatively. "Paul, as his manner was, went in "unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of "the Scriptures." (Acts xvii. 2.) The Bereans are said to have been " more noble than those of Thessalonica,"-in that " they "searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. (Acts xvii. 11.) Apollos, "mighty in the Scriptures," "convinced "the Jews, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts xviii. 28.) Paul "expounded and testified the kingdom of "God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of "Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts xxviii. 23.)

Thus, in every case, we find, not "an authoritative expositor," but a persuading reasoner,-one addressing men's intellects, and submitting evidence to their judgments. And the like tone pervades the epistles:-" Whatsoever things were written aforetime "were written for our learning, that we through patience and "comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." (Rom. xv. 4.) “We "write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknow"ledge; and I trust shall acknowledge even unto the end." (2 Cor. i. 13.) "From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." (2 Tim. iii. 15.) It is difficult to prove a negative; but we may fearlessly call upon those who argue for an "authoritative standard of faith,"

vested in the hands of certain living and erring men, to shew us one Scripture in support of such a principle. Rulers and governors of the Church, indeed, we find inholy writ ;-but an authorized expositor, we find not.

[ocr errors]

Secondly; the primitive Church knew nothing of such a standard. The appeal of the early Christian writers, ever was, to "what is written." "Thus Irenæus, in the second century, thus expresses himself: We have not known the economy of our salvation by others than those by whom the gospel first came to us; which they first preached, and by the will of God delivered in writing, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith.' In terms yet more unequivocally exclusive of all claims of tradition to authority, in matters of faith, Tertullian, writing against Hermogenes, who held the eternity of matter, says, ' If this be not written, let Hermogenes fear the woe which belongs to them who add or detract.' Eusebius, writing against Sabellius, in reply to his own question, What are those things which we ought to inquire? says, Even those things which are to be found in scripture. Those things which are not to be found there, let us not seek after; for if they ought to be known, the Holy Spirit had not omitted them in the scripture.' Jerome against Helvidius, says, As we deny not that which is written, so we refuse those which are not written. Every thing that we assert we must shew from the holy scripture.' And to name no more, Theophilus of Alexandria has this strong saying, in one of his Homilies, 'It is the suggestion of a diabolical spirit to think that any thing besides the scripture has divine authority." "1

'

Thirdly; the Church of England rejects every such claim or pretension.

Mr. Wray gladly quotes the interpolated words of the twentieth Article, "The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith,"-but even this addition cannot neutralize the effect of the strong disclaimer which follows, in the Article as it was originally framed and signed :-

"It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one "place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, "although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet,

as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides "the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation."

[ocr errors]

Here it is plainly implied, that certain things are written, plainly

Glasgow Lectures on Popery, p. 11.

written, so written in God's word, that they at once become, without any Church authority, of universal obligation. And beyond these plain things, which may be read in scripture by all, the Church has no authority,-so she herself declares,-to promulgate a single doctrine. Nay, when in her viiith Article, she admits and adopts the three Creeds, she assigns the same reason. She does not adopt those symbols, because the universal Church has always received them. Her sole ground is this:-"for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture."

Fourthly, however, let us observe, that, whatever the Romanist may pretend, his Church has not, in fact, any such authoritative standard of faith as she claims to be possessed of.

"While the Bible or Protestant rule is easy of application, the case is different with the Roman Catholic rule, which includes the Bible, Apocrypha, unwritten traditions, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the interpretations of an infallible Judge, which has not spoken for near three hundred years, and whose writings make a library in a dead language;-the missal, and breviary, &c. For when the priest takes his rule, comprising about one hundred and thirty-five volumes folio, in two dead languages, and interprets it privately, he must do it himself; and after interpreting the Bible, he must then proceed to the other parts of his rule, and that, too, without being infallible: Now who does not see that the Protestant interpreter has decidedly the advantage of the priest; and the assumed infallibility of the Church of Rome is worth nothing, unless every bishop and priest were also infallible?

"Roman Catholics themselves are compelled, when they would attempt sober interpretation, to have recourse to legitimate private explanation, or, in other words, to an interpretation founded on the laws which regulate language. We have an example of this in the Lectures of Dr. Wiseman on Infallibility. Dr. Wiseman is a clergyman of great eminence in England, whose Lectures receive unbounded commendation from Romanists. From the following extract on infallibility, it will be seen that he endeavours to establish that doctrine precisely in the same manner in which Protestants establish their principles. He is commenting on our Lord's commission. It is plain that there must be a certain criterion-a sure way to arrive at a correct knowledge of our Saviour's meaning; and I know not what rule can be better proposed than the obvious one on every other occasion, that is, to analyze and weigh the signification of each portion of the sentence to arrive at the meaning of the words; and thus, by reconstructing the sentence with the intelligence of all its parts, see what is the meaning intended by him who spoke. And for this purpose

« PreviousContinue »