THE CHURCHMAN'S LAMENT.
The Rev. Mr. Ingleby, when opening an evening discussion on a very important question, gave it as his opinion that the judgment which Robert Hall formed on the present aspect of the Papal movements, is perfectly correct. He says—"It is certain that the members of the Romish community are at this moment on the tiptoe of expectation, indulging the most sanguine hopes, suggested by the temper of the times, of soon recovering all that they have lost, and of seeing the pretended rights of their church restored in their full splendour. If anything can realize such an expectation, it is undoubtedly the torpor and indifference of Protestants, combined with the incredible zeal and activity of Papists; and universal observation shows what these are capable of effecting—for often they compensate the disadvantages arising from paucity of number, as well as almost every kind of inequality."
Mr. Roscoe.—"If, Sir, we were merely torpid and indifferent, there would be less danger to apprehend; but the fact is, the high church principles, which are now struggling amongst us for the ascendency, are imperceptibly and very extensively reconciling the clergy and many of the laity to the fatal errors of the Church of Rome. It is, I believe, the opinion of most who have paid much attention to the records of prophecy, that Popery, before her final overthrow and extinction, will revive from her long torpid state, will shake herself from the dust which has been accumulating around her during her slumber of inaction, and come forth with new and more vigorous life. I fear that a large number of our Episcopal clergy are preparing the way, some few openly, but the greater proportion of them secretly and slyly, for the triumphs of the Papacy in the United Kingdom, especially amongst the Churchmen of England."
Mr. Lewellin.—"That the Papacy does look with a longing eye on Britain, the emporium of wealth and of the arts and the sciences, and is with Jesuitical artifice concocting schemes for its recovery to her own dominion, is now too palpable for any one to doubt; and I believe, when she does come forth in some new forms of seductive attraction, she will gain over many to her ranks, both of the clergy and the laity of your church; but her efforts to beguile and subdue Dissenters will be but the serpent biting at the file; our absolute and exclusive authority in support and defence of our belief is the Bible, and our watchword is, 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them'" (Isa. viii. 20).
M. S. MORGAN. T. BOLTON.
THE BRIDAL PARTY WELCOMED BY THE VILLAGERS.
Vol. ii page 456.
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"And our appeal, if we acted a consistent part as sound Protestants, would be to the same authority; but many of our clergy are not satisfied with this authority, but are for calling in the fathers, and appealing to the decisions of councils, and listening to the vague and often contradictory testimony of unauthenticated tradition. They are unsettling Protestantism by the attempts they are making in its defence."
Mr. Lewellin.—"A high Churchman may say, and say truly, there is but a step between me and Popery. And consistency has already forced some of them to take this step; but I apprehend that many, with the Pope in their hearts, will feel more disposed to sacrifice consistency on the altar of self-interest, than publicly profess allegiance to his authority. The entreaties and the tears of a loving wife, especially when she pleads under the shade of a palace, the mitre gracing the brow of her frail lord, or when standing on the luxuriant soil of a rich benefice, will decide many a bishop, and many a prebend, and many a rector, to prefer hypocrisy to apostasy; they will content themselves by attempting to assimilate the Church of England, as nearly as possible, to the corrupt original from which she withdrew at the Reformation."
Mr. Roscoe.—"But some are so thoroughly honest, that they prefer apostasy to hypocrisy. Some, even of the evangelical clergy, are gone off to Rome, and many others, I fear, will follow them."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I have long apprehended and dreaded this, and I have made many efforts to convince my clerical brethren of the fatal tendency of their high church principles, but I have not been very successful. No mathematical demonstration appears to me clearer than this, that if the clergy will magnify the church, instead of magnifying the Saviour; if they will confine salvation within the pale of her communion, instead of proclaiming that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved; if they will maintain that no minister of the Christian faith is a true minister of Jesus Christ, unless he has received episcopal ordination from a bishop in the regular line of succession from the apostles, they will be led, in the process of the inquiry, to see the palpable inconsistency of having a secular power as the head of the church, and then there is no alternative but to bow down and do homage to the Pope, as the spiritual head of a church founded and upheld by his spiritual authority. But so strong is the attachment they cherish to their high church principles, that some say they cannot give them up, even though such an issue should take place; and others are even sanguine in their expectations of being able to effect a junction with Rome, by inducing her to abandon some of her dogmas, and relax in some of her absolute, and what they consider unimportant regulations."
Mr. Stevens.—"I see dark omens in the heavens. A severe testing time is coming. I believe we have amongst us many noble spirits, who are valiant for the Protestant faith; but we have also a powerful and subtile enemy in the field, and, I fear, many treacherous men in our camp. A party of the clergy of our Protestant Church hailing with delight a union with Papal Rome! How startling and humiliating!"
Mr. Roscoe.—"Many great and good laymen amongst us see the tendency of these high church principles, and deeply deplore it, yet but few of the clergy apprehend any real, or rather any very alarming danger. Indeed, the leading men amongst them believe that these principles are the only safe barrier of defence which can be thrown around the Church of England, thus virtually admitting that she is not established by Christ's authority, nor guarded by his strong arm. I have often said to many of them, You act not only impoliticly, but dangerously. You are professedly protecting your church against Dissenters, from whom you have little or nothing to fear; while by your manœuvres you are moving nearer and nearer the Romanists, who will ultimately seduce you to their fellowship, if they do not gain actual possession of your church."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Yes, I fear that evil times are coming. Many of the best part of our clergy are tainted with the popular opinions of the worst. They do not preach like our pious forefathers, urging the people to repent and believe in Christ. They magnify the Church of England at the perfection of ecclesiastical order and beauty, and direct their vituperations against their fellow-Protestants who differ from them on the comparatively unimportant questions of Episcopacy and Episcopal ordination. The only points of importance on which the evangelical clergy differ from their Tractarian brethren, relate to the efficacy of the sacraments."
Mr. Stevens.—"These high church principles have always prevailed amongst some of our clergy; but they never gained such notoriety as they have recently done. They were merely an undercurrent, but now they are like the Jordan overflowing its banks. Daubeny's Guide to the Church made a little stir on its appearance, but it produced no ferment in the popular mind. Mant's tracts on baptismal regeneration made a more powerful impression; but it very soon subsided, and things remained as they were. But the Oxford tracts have roused the attention of Europe. They are shrewd, subtile, elegantly written papers, which, by laying hold of the imagination, easily beguile the heart; they are doing great execution amongst our sentimental half-Popish Churchmen, and especially amongst silly women: written professedly in defence of the Church of England, yet, as I once heard a Catholic priest[24] say, nothing that ever issued from the press has done so much to aid the triumphs of Popery."
Mr. Roscoe.—"I have read most of these tracts, and I am fully convinced, by the arguments and reasonings of the writers, that the high church principles, which are becoming so popular amongst our clergy and some of the laity, cannot be deduced from the Bible, which contains the religion of Protestants."
Mr. Stevens.—"From the Bible, Sir! no; they emanate from the Prayer-book, that keepsake which Rome gave to Protestantism at the time of the Reformation, with this inscription written in hieroglyphics:—'Occupy till I come.' That book, Sir, is the cause of all the Popery with which our church abounds. It is the destroying angel of a pure Protestant faith."
Mr. Lewellin.—"Ay, I have often told you that you were too much attached to your Prayer-book. It is to many Churchmen not only a domestic idol, but the idol of their temple: and now you are suffering for your idolatrous attachment to a book which the Jesuitical spirit of Rome induced your Reformers to take into their worship, and indorse it as the guide of the faithful in all future ages. To that book, which you admit to be an authority, the Puseyites now appeal in support and defence of their Papal opinions and customs, preferring its authority to the authority of the Word of the Lord. They tell you, as the Papal priests tell their devotees, that the Bible is an ambiguous book; that it ought not to be put into circulation, except with notes and comments written by some of their own order; that prophets, and apostles, and Jesus Christ himself ought not to be trusted amongst the people, unless some Tractarian professor or priest go with them to give the proper interpretation to their equivocal teachings; but the Prayer-book, in their estimation, is the living oracle, the Urim and Thummim of a new theocracy, which utters the truth of inspiration in unmistakeable language."
Mr. Stevens.—"I went and heard the Rev. Mr. Farish, who left his curacy a few months ago, preach his farewell sermon. He knew that the clergyman who was appointed to succeed him, was one of the most rabid Puseyites that Oxford ever sent forth. At the conclusion of his discourse he said, as nearly as I can recollect, 'I have preached to you Christ and him crucified; and I have told you again and again that there is none other name under heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved. I have proved from Holy Writ that salvation is of grace—free unmerited grace through faith—and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: "not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. ii. 9). My successor is a clergyman of a different school, and he will, I fear, dwell more on the ceremonies of our faith than on its doctrines, and most likely he will give to the sacraments a prominency to which you have not been accustomed. But if the gospel should be excluded from the pulpit, as I fear it will be, sorrow not, even as others who have no hope; you will hear it from the desk. The great truths of the Bible may be perverted and suppressed, but no sacrilegious hand will dare to mutilate or withhold our Prayer-book. This ever liveth, and is unchangeable amidst all the mutations of a mysterious Providence. You then, brethren, will not forget that you are Churchmen, and you will still cleave to the altar and the walls of your church; and wait till the vision returns, which for a season is about to vanish away.'"
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I have always protested against advising people to attend their church when the gospel is banished from the pulpit, and for this reason: it is the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation, and not the Prayer-book. And experience proves, that if there be no more gospel in a church than what the Prayer-book announces, the people show no signs of spiritual life."
Mr. Roscoe.—"This is diverting the attention of the people from the Word of God, to the compositions of man—a most dangerous experiment, fraught with great evil."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I think so. When we go to the Bible, and take its lessons, believing what it teaches us, we are safe; but if we admit any other book to become our authoritative teacher, then we are in great danger. In that case we follow a fallible instead of an infallible guide. Hence originate the discordant opinions which are now disturbing the peace of our church."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Yes, Sir, this is the root of the evil that exists and is spreading amongst us. I certainly admire much of our Liturgy, and think that the men who drew up some of the prayers, though not inspired, in the sense in which apostles and prophets were inspired, yet they must have been greatly assisted by the Spirit of the Lord when composing them. But many parts of the Prayer-book are very exceptionable, of which I was not conscious till lately. The fantastical exhibition of the white-robed priest in the pulpit, and wax candles burning on the altar at mid-day, or in readiness to be lighted, have led me to examine the Prayer-book more attentively and minutely, and I must confess that the closer I study it, the lower it sinks in my esteem and confidence."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I have been attached to the church from my youth, and I am still attached to it. But my attachment is to its excellencies, not to its defects. I prefer Episcopacy to Presbyterianism, or Independency; but the exterior form of government is a matter of little moment, when compared with the essential principles of the Christian faith. Forms may change, as they have changed before, but Christianity itself undergoes no change; the new and living way of access to a reconciled God and Father in Christ Jesus, is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for all ages and all countries."
Mr. Roscoe.—"If we could have Episcopacy thoroughly relieved from the excrescences which disfigure and defile it, and our Prayer-book thoroughly purged from all its Papal sacraments and ceremonies, we then should have, in my opinion, the faith embodied in an external form of government and ritual, as near the perfection of the New Testament as human wisdom could make it. I then should look on the Church of England as one of the purest churches of the Reformation: it then would be the temple of peace and order."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Yes, Sir, I should like to see this done; but alas! it is what, I fear, the present temper of the times would not tolerate—something to be desired, rather than expected—a utopian calculation—the forlorn hope of ecclesiastical reformation."
Mr. Lewellin.—"Reform the Prayer-book! Why, Sir, to touch that antique book, grown gray in the service of the temple, and around which there is such a clustering of tender and imaginative associations—to obliterate a single sentence, or change a single custom, or new-shape a single ceremony—would be, in the estimation of the great majority of Churchmen, a crime as heinous as that of Uzzah, who laid hold of the ark of God with unclean hands; and would merit a similar doom. The proposal to do such a foul deed would disturb the peace of every parish within the domain of Episcopacy; would raise such lamentations as have never yet been heard by the ear of living humanity; and compel many a grave old man, and many a still graver old matron, to go and mourn apart from the general community of grief. Reform the Prayer-book! that pure relic of antiquity! What wild project next? If you take my Bible, O, spare me my Prayer-book! would be the exclamation of many of the church-going people of England."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I think, with you, Sir, that the current of national prejudice in favour of the integrity of the Prayer-book is at present too strong to be resisted; and all attempts to effect any essential change in it will end in failure."
Mr. Roscoe.—"It must be revised and reformed if we are to retain our Protestantism."
Mr. Lewellin.—"As Protestantism and the Prayer-book have lived together in love for so many centuries, why not permit them to live on to the end? especially as this close alliance has had both the sanction and the support of the most distinguished of the evangelical clergy."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Because the Prayer-book is now putting forth that inherent Papal power which long lay dormant and unsuspected; and is doing this, not to aid the spiritual triumphs of the glorious gospel of Christ, but to sap the foundation of our Protestant faith; and thus prepare the people to hail the return of the Papacy amongst us. It is, if I may be allowed the use of such a figure, the decoy duck of Popery, which we have been carefully preserving in the ark of our faith, mistaking it for the gentle dove. Dr. Pusey, in his letter to the Bishop of London, says: 'It is more than idle to talk, as some have done, of putting down Tractarianism in order to check secession to Rome. Such might drive hundreds from the church for tens; but while that precious jewel, the Prayer-book, remains, they cannot destroy or weaken Tractarianism. Tractarianism was entirely the birth of the English Church. Its life must be consistent with the formularies with which it is embodied.'"
Mr. Stevens.—"But there is certainly a change coming over the public mind respecting the Prayer-book. Some very stanch Churchmen are for driving it out of our church, as the buyers and sellers were driven out of the temple; but most are for purging it from its Papal defilements and sacraments."
Mr. Lewellin.—"I am aware that there is a slight movement amongst a certain order of Churchmen in favour of a revision of your Prayer-book, that it may be brought into a more perfect agreement with the purity of the Christian faith; but how is it that so few of the evangelical clergy take part in the present struggle? They seem, so I judge from their inaction, as willing to let this stronghold of Popery remain unscaled, as their Tractarian opponents."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Two reasons, I think, may be assigned for their inaction, though, in my opinion, they are not very logical or powerful. They love peace and quietness, and this restrains them from taking any active part in the contest; and, in addition to this, they are somewhat apprehensive that if the secular powers interfere, they may decree a rejection of the old Prayer-book, and the construction of a new one."
Mr. Roscoe.—"I would not give my sanction to such a decree. No, Sir, we will retain our Prayer-book, but have it submitted to a very severe purifying process. There must not be, as at the Reformation, an attempt made to please both Papists and Protestants; it must be made thoroughly Protestant, as it is designed for us; and hence there must be a thorough purging out of the old leaven of Popery, and nothing retained but what is in exact harmony with the New Testament records. No rite, no ceremony, no institution, no ecclesiastical law or regulation which does not originate in Divine appointment."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"If this could be accomplished, and we could have a Prayer-book whose articles and ceremonial rites and institutes would exactly harmonize, as they ought to do, with the integrity and the purity of the New Testament, then the Church of England would become a great moral and spiritual power amongst us, justly entitled to the admiration and the homage of the British people, whose sympathies and affections would rally so closely around her, that she need not stand in awe of the aristocracy of Popery, nor be jealous of the democracy of Dissent, nor cherish the slightest misgivings, when assailed by any class of infidels."
Mr. Lewellin.—"I should very much like to see such a prayer-book substituted for the half-Papal and half-Protestant one which you now have; and if, Sir," addressing Mr. Roscoe, "you were nominated on a commission appointed to revise it, what suppressions and alterations would you propose?"
Mr. Roscoe.—"I would begin with the Catechism."
THE CATECHISM.
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"A catechism should be a digest of the entire theory of Divine truth, arranged in logical and systematic order, every part should be stated in such definite and plain terms as to be easily understood, especially by the young."
Mr. Roscoe.—"But our Catechism does not answer this description. It contains no correct digest of biblical truth, nor is there any order; it is defective on some points, and on others it is erroneous—more in harmony with Papal than with Protestant belief. It begins by advancing, in a categorical form, a delusive and a most fatal error, which, as a necessary sequence, is made to run through all the prominent ceremonies of our church, placing the Tractarians on the vantage ground, who claim the honour of being more faithful expositors of our national creed than their evangelical opponents. In reply to the question about who gave the catechumen his name, he is taught to say, 'My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.'"
Mr. Lewellin.—"These ecclesiastical officials can put in no claim to a Divine origin or sanction; there is no allusion to godfathers or godmothers in the Bible; they are an importation from Rome; and I think it will be more to your honour to send them back, than retain them in your service."
Mr. Roscoe.—"What follows is equally, if not more objectionable:—'Question.—What did your godfathers and godmothers then for you? Answer.—They did promise and vow three things in my name. First, that I should renounce the devil and all his works, the pomp and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh. Secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Christian faith. And thirdly, that I should keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of my life.' Thus the Church of England initiates the rising generation into the belief of positive and dangerous error;[25] substitutes absolute falsehood for Scripture truth, as no such moral wonders[26] are performed when the rite of baptism is administered."
Mr. Lewellin.—"How any intelligent Protestant, with the fear of God before his eyes, can conscientiously take upon himself such a vow, that a child, who is born in sin and shapen in iniquity, shall renounce all the sinful lusts of the flesh, and walk in God's commandments all the days of his life, is to me inexplicable, unless he looks upon the ceremony of baptism as a mere farce, and his vow an idle, unmeaning utterance. However, one thing is certain; they find it more easy to make the vow than to keep it; as the children of the church turn out as gay, and dissipated, and sceptical, as those who never had such a vow made in their behalf."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I can offer no arguments in defence of the appointment of godfathers and godmothers; they certainly have no New Testament origin or sanction. And if I were left to my own choice, I would rather forego administering the rite of baptism to infants, than I would tolerate such vows, when those who make them, and those who hear them made, very well know that they have no power to redeem them."
Mr. Roscoe.—"As no human being can persuade or coerce another to do these deeds of renunciation and submission, we must look upon the whole ceremony as a purely Papal invention, admitted most censurably within the pale of our church, and incorporated with her system of ceremonial discipline and order. Hence I presume, Sir, you would very willingly have these parts of our Catechism expunged?"
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Indeed, Sir, I should, and so would my evangelical brethren. It is a sad evil which we groan under."
Mr. Lewellin.—"The Tractarian clergy, in common with the Papal priests, are resolute in their adherence to this baptismal ceremony and its catechetical adjuncts; and they denounce their evangelical opponents as unfit to officiate in the church, because they impeach her authority to originate ecclesiastical ceremonies which have no sanction from the New Testament. From these data I draw the following conclusion:—the evangelical clergy are the most consistent scripturalists, but the Tractarian are the most consistent Churchmen; and while the former do homage to Divine authority, the latter prefer rendering allegiance to human."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Your conclusion, Sir, is just; but it is a most mortifying one, and I think we should do all in our power to get a Catechism more in harmony with the New Testament and the Protestant faith."
THE CONFIRMATION SERVICE.
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"It is maintained by many, that the rite of confirmation which is administered by our bishops is a continuation of apostolic practice, recorded in the Acts; but I prefer the judgment which our own distinguished commentator, the Rev. T. Scott, has given on this subject:—'The rite of confirmation, as practised by many Christian churches, has often been, and still is, spoken of as a continuation of the apostolical imposition of hands for the confirmation of new converts, by the Holy Spirit thus given to them. But it is far from evident that this was done universally by the apostles, or by those who immediately succeeded them. As, however, miraculous powers, rather than sanctifying grace, were thus conferred, unless miraculous powers were now connected with that rite, the parallel must wholly fail.[27] How far something of this kind, properly regulated and conducted, may be rendered subservient to the edification of young persons descended from pious parents, and baptized when infants, is another question; but to advance this observance into a sacrament, and even above a sacrament (as it certainly is advanced when the Holy Spirit is supposed to be conferred by imposition of hands, and by using words in prayer like those of Peter and of John), puts the subject in a very different light. Doubtless it was at first thus magnified in order to exalt the Episcopal order, to whom the administration of it was confined, as if they were intrusted with apostolic authority; but as miracles are out of the question, so to follow the apostles in faith, humility, diligence in preaching in season and out of season, in piety, and self-denial, is the only scriptural mode of magnifying either the Episcopal or the clerical office. Assuredly as this matter (namely, the confirmation service) is very often conducted, it must be allowed to be an evil; and it ought either to be attended to in another manner, or not at all.' Change it, or abolish it."
Mr. Stevens.—"I met the other day, in my casual reading, with an honest confession from a leading Tractarian: 'It is true, the actual word confirmation does not occur in the Bible in that sense in which we are now using it,' which is a plain admission that the rite, as administered by our bishops, differs from that act of confirmation which the apostles performed. They confirmed believers who were members of the church; that is, strengthened their faith, by renewed evidences of its Divine origin, urging them at the same time to continue in it, notwithstanding the persecutions they might be exposed to, and on some occasions they conferred the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost; but our modern bishops administer the ceremony to young people who make no decided profession of personal piety, and the observance of this ceremony, and not their piety, is the ecclesiastical qualification for membership with the church over which their jurisdiction extends."
Mr. Roscoe.—"It appears to me, after a close investigation of the subject, that confirmation, as administered by our bishops, is based on the fatal error of baptismal regeneration, and is a necessary sequence to it. Two objects are accomplished by it. In the first place, it is a release to godfathers and godmothers from the heavy responsibilities they took upon themselves, when they gave the vow at the baptismal font that their godchild should renounce all the sinful lusts of the flesh, &c.; and, in the second place, the confirmed person becomes legally entitled to all the privileges and immunities which the Church of England guarantees to her members; and, at the same time, 'confirms and perfects,' as Dr. Hook says, 'that which the grace of God's most Holy Spirit has already begun in baptism.' Hence the prayer which the bishop offers up before he administers the rite, is in exact agreement with this statement:—'Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins, strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace; the spirit of wisdom and understanding; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength; the spirit of knowledge and true godliness; and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen.' After this prayer, then, follows the effective act of confirmation; the bishop lays his hand on the head of every one kneeling before him, repeating a short prayer; and it is by this imposition of hands and prayer that the grace is conveyed which nourishes and strengthens the inner spiritual life, which was infused at the baptismal font; or, to quote what Dr. Hook says, 'it is to perfect that which the grace of God's most Holy Spirit has already begun in baptism.'"
Mr. Lewellin.—"This certainly is a very ingenious arrangement, to show out to public notice the importance of a duly authorized priesthood, on whose official actions the spiritual life and safety of Churchmen and their children are made to depend; but it is ingenuity at the expense of truth and common sense. In the prayer which precedes the ceremony of confirmation, the bishop asserts what is not true—children are not regenerated at the font of baptism; and yet it is asserted that they are. He does not pray that God would be pleased to forgive them their sins; he merely tells God that he has done it; and thus they are confirmed in the belief of a most fatal delusion—a positive falsehood."
Mr. Stevens.-"Unquestionably; every person who is confirmed, if he have any faith in the integrity of the bishop, when engaged in this act of public devotion, must believe two things; indeed, he is compelled to believe them, unless he impeaches the piety of the bishop; he must believe that he is regenerated, and consequently needs no spiritual change of heart and mind; and he must believe that all his past sins are forgiven, which renders it unnecessary for him to pray for mercy on account of any bygone acts of delinquency or—impiety. What a delusion!—a fatal delusion!"
Mr. Roscoe.—"That no such moral effects result from this act of confirmation, is very painfully demonstrated by the scenes which often follow its performance. I went some time since, at the request of a friend who, like myself, still cleaves to the church, while he loathes many of her Papal ceremonies, to witness a confirmation, and what immediately followed. Some on leaving the church appeared to be seriously impressed; but the majority were as mirthful as if returning from a fair; many resorted to the public-houses, and in the evening they were seen reeling home in a state of intoxication; and I afterwards heard of some who fell into grosser crimes."[28]
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"There is no denying the fact, that what often follows a confirmation service is most revolting to Christian feeling; tending to bring its administration into popular disrepute. Hence, I can subscribe to the truth of a statement, and an accompanying opinion, given by a clergyman of high distinction, in his reply to some official interrogations. 'I do not pretend to know,' he says, 'what may have been the effect of confirmation in former times, but I have witnessed enough in our day to make me wish to see it abolished. In some persons it creates a superstitious trust in the efficacy of the mere ceremony; to others it is a grand festival, a time to see and be seen; and too frequently ending in folly, drunkenness, and every kind of vice. I have heard more than one reclaimed drunkard, in giving an account of himself, date his first act of intemperance, or first intoxication, to the day of his confirmation; and on these accounts it is, to many, a subject of ridicule and contempt, bringing discredit upon our holy religion.... For more than ten years my own desire has been, that in any measure of church reform that may be adopted, the ceremony of confirmation may be entirely left out.'"
THE ORDINATION SERVICE.
Mr. Roscoe.—"I was not aware, till very recently, that the ordination service is so very objectionable in many of its parts, especially to any one who is jealous of the Divine honour. When a person presents himself to be admitted to the order of priesthood in our church (and it matters not whether he be a gay man of fashion or a devout servant of God), after replying to certain questions proposed to him, and giving certain assurances, he is then required to kneel in the presence of the bishop, who thus speaks in a tone of authority, as though he had all power in heaven and on earth:—'Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands; whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' Does it not savour of blasphemy to concede to any man an authority to forgive sins?"
Mr. Lewellin.—"I think it does, Sir, and very strongly. And are you aware that the priests of the Church of England are invested with a much higher degree of authority in this matter than any of the priesthood of the Papal Church of Rome?"
Mr. Roscoe.—"Not with a higher degree of authority! That I think is impossible."
Mr. Lewellin.—"Indeed, Sir, they are. Their delegated power is made absolute, and it is unlimited; but the power of the Papal priesthood is placed under very stringent restrictions. Thus, when the Papal priest puts into requisition the exercise of his ghostly power, in the remission of the sins of the dying Catholic, the bye-laws of his church make a distinction, and for very lucrative reasons, between venial and mortal sins; he is authorized to remit venial sins, but he is powerless to remit mortal sin; and hence his form of absolution runs as follows: 'And by virtue of authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' The Episcopal Protestants' form of absolution runs thus: 'And by His authority, committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' The Papal priest remits some sins; the Protestant priest absolves from all sins; the Roman Catholic, after his priest has absolved him, has to go and live for a season amidst purgatorial fires; but as Protestantism has no purgatory, her devotee passes at once, according to this Episcopal legend, into the kingdom of heaven, after her priest has exercised his absolving power. The priest, then, according to this absolution ceremony, saves from hell, and gives a passport to heaven, by virtue of the delegated authority he received from the bishop who ordained him."
Mr. Stevens.—"This, certainly, is a too glaring usurpation of the Divine prerogative of mercy on the part of the priesthood, to be tolerated, especially by us Protestants. Away with it from our Prayer-book, and send it back to Papal Rome, from whence it came. It is both a sin and a disgrace to a Protestant community to tolerate amongst them such a close conformity to the blasphemous usurpations of the Papal Church."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I thought but little about it when I was ordained, but I have thought much since, and I must admit that it is most objectionable, so much so that I have made up my mind never to attend another ordination service. The bishop assumes and professes to convey a power which does not belong to man, and with which man ought never to be intrusted."
Mr. Roscoe.—"To invest a man with such power has a most dangerous and servile tendency. If a priest really believes, as many of them do, both Papal and Protestant, that he is actually endowed with the authority which the bishop professes to delegate to him at his ordination, must he not look upon himself as a great being, entitled to great homage, having a disposing power over the final destiny of the human spirit? will he not move about amongst his parishioners as a demi-god in the human form?—whom he wills, he pardons and saves, and whom he wills, he allows to perish. And if he makes the people believe this, as the clergy are now attempting to do, will they not stand more in awe of him, whom they see and hear, than they do of God, who is invisible?"
THE BURIAL SERVICE.
Mr. Stevens.—"I think some parts of this service require revision, though, as a whole, I rather like it."
Mr. Roscoe.—"As a service to be read at the interment of a devout man, a believer in Jesus Christ, it is very appropriate; but it must be a very painful infliction on a truly pious and conscientious clergyman, to read the service at the interment of a very wicked person."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Yes, Sir, it is indeed; and I make it a rule to vary the forms of expression when I have such an office to perform on such an occasion."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Yes, Sir, I am aware you do; and though it is, I believe, a trespass on the sanctity of canon law, yet I think no conscientious person will blame you."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"On one occasion, some years since, when I made this variation, a complaint was lodged against me by the relatives of the deceased for so doing. The bishop sent for me; and when I told him that the deceased was a very impure man, an avowed sceptic, and one who died in the act of sinning against God, his lordship said, 'I do not wonder at your scruples. I cannot blame you.' The service is often most painfully trying to a conscientious clergyman, not only on his own account, but on account of the wrong impressions it often makes on those who attend at the funeral. We know that last impressions, like first impressions, are often very powerful; they linger long on the heart and on the imagination; and hence, when the survivors of a wicked man hear a clergyman thanking God for taking the soul of the departed one to himself, they very naturally withdraw from the scene of death, under a firm belief that, however profligate he may have been in his life, and however agonizing his dying mental pangs, he is just as well off in the eternal world as he would be if he had lived a religious or virtuous life."
Mr. Lewellin.—"It appears, from the tone and style of your Prayer-book, that the persons, when receiving the mysterious efficacy of your sacraments, are just as passive, in one sense, as a piece of marble is under the chisel of the sculptor. They stand still, as the block of marble stands still, doing nothing; they may be dozing. The clergy, like the sculptor, do all that is to be done, and the sacraments they administer are to take effect on these passive beings by virtue of their inherent power, when properly administered by a bishop, or a priest who has received Episcopal ordination from a bishop, who is in the regular line of succession from the apostles. Now this Tractarian theory is in direct contradiction to the Word of God, which makes it obligatory on every sinner to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling; to believe and to trust in Christ that he may be saved; to receive the truth in the love of it, which is to effect his spiritual freedom; to yield himself to God as made alive from the dead; to purify himself, and to walk in newness of life; and even the first great action of Divine grace, in his renewal and renovation, is making him willing to do what is essential for his present happiness and safety, and his final salvation. Thus, according to the Scripture theory, the sacraments have no self-acting power, nor have the agents who administer them any self-sufficient power; the regenerating and sanctifying power is in the Lord alone, and to him, and him alone, is a sinner indebted for his salvation, which is an act of sovereign and unmerited grace." See Ephes. ii. 8, 9, 10.
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I deeply regret that we have in our Prayer-book so many objectionable services and ceremonies, and more especially as they bring us into so close a conformity with the Papal Church of Rome. Any impartial person, who looks at the two churches through the medium of these prominent services and ceremonies, would pronounce us twin sisters, or ours a daughter bearing a very strong resemblance to her mother; and it is only by turning to our articles that we can point out any essential difference between them. Our articles are Protestant and scriptural; our ceremonies are derived from the Papacy, and are antiscriptural. Hence we account for the existence of the two orders of clergy who officiate at our altars—the evangelical and the Tractarian. We are a kingdom divided against itself, and what the final issue of the contest will be no human foresight can decide. You are for reforming the Prayer-book by expunging that which savours so strongly of the Papacy; and if this could be done, then Tractarianism would disappear from amongst us, and we should hold the unity of the faith in the bonds of peace. But who will undertake this herculean labour? Will our clergy? They have no power, even if they had an inclination. Will our bishops? No. They have gained the prize, and are contented; they live in affluence and in ease, and care but little about the strife and contentions which prevail amongst their subordinates, with whom they hold but a very formal and distant intercourse. The laity, at least the more enlightened, and the pious, I know, are restless for a change; but I see not how any change can be effected unless there be a breaking up of the Establishment, for it to undergo a remodelling; and if such a great crisis as this should come, there is no conjecturing, from the present aspect of the times, whether the Prayer-book would receive a more scriptural or a more Papal cast and complexion. We ought not to forget that it is the civil power which appoints our bishops, sits in judgment on the conflicting opinions which divide the clergy, and rules the destiny of our church; and we know, from very painful experience, that the civil power, whether embodied in a Whig or a Tory administration, has uniformly evinced a stronger liking for ceremonial pomp and display, than for the beautiful simplicity of the church of the New Testament. Hence, I believe that reformation is hopeless, as Cæsar disdains to admit the supremacy of Jesus of Nazareth."
Mr. Lewellin.—"That, Sir, is my decided opinion."
Mr. Stevens.—"I am not sanguine in my hopes. The buyers and sellers are again in the temple, but the Son of God is not now in the form of the Son of man, or they would soon be driven out."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Then, Sir, Tractarianism will spread more widely and rapidly amongst us, and if an open and a positive junction be not formed between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, there will be a tacit one; and the reign of ecclesiastical delusion and despotism will be established in Britain; and the English, like the Irish and the Italians, will be, at least to a certain extent, a priest-ridden people."
Mr. Lewellin.—"You should all do as I have done, and then you may breathe freely and without fear, and laugh to scorn all attempts, open or insidious, to beguile you to Rome. Our principles render us invulnerable; yours, constitute your danger."
Mr. Stevens.—"Mr. Lewellin means we should all turn Dissenters, and acknowledge no legislative dictation or authority in matters of religion but that of the New Testament."
Mr. Lewellin.—"You have often rallied me on my Dissenting principles, but the time is fast coming when the problem will be solved, that dissent from human authority in matters of the Christian faith is the only invincible barrier against the encroachments of the Papal power."
Mr. Roscoe.—"I have no desire to forsake the church of my fathers—the church of my early and long-cherished veneration and attachment—but I will not remain in her communion if she form an alliance with Papal Rome, or become semi-Papal herself. No! I am a Protestant Christian, which is another designation for a Bible Christian; the Bible is my infallible rule, which forbids absolute yielding and subserviency to any human authority; and if Protestantism be driven from the Church of England, or if she gives that submission to priestly dictation which should be given exclusively to the Word of the Lord, I will immediately leave her, as I would leave my own mansion if I felt its foundation giving way, preferring the woodside cottage as more safe, though less elegant and imposing."