« 上一頁繼續 »
Jay, Rev. W. ... xi Pusey, Dr. ..
-evangelized 36 Popes, their crimes 63
King William III. 58 Record
Lay-preaching patristic 111 | Rival Pontiffs
London, Bishop of .79,97 Rodolph
with a baptist, profane 121 Sacraments term improper 104
Mortimer, Rev. T. 116 South Sea Islands
No. 90 of the Tracts 23 Tom at Boughton
65 Ultimate design of Puseyism 25
Persecuting Spirit .. 92, 93 Virgin Mary
66 Wakefield Tracts
The most Rev. Dr. Howley ;-Hon. and very Rev. Dr. Bagot.
Revs. W. F. Baylay, M.A.,—Hon. and Rev. J. E. Boscawen,
This Work, on the “Uninterrupted Succession," I beg leave with all that respect which is due to learning, or to wealth, to intellect, or to rank, to dedicate to you. Doing so, however, without permission, may be considered as a measure of doubtful propriety, and may possibly procure for the writer much inconvenient, and even ill-natured remark. Such a result would not be altogether unexpected; yet it would be, I think, altogether undeserved: because, “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Now I am perfectly willing to receive a public and personal address from any parties, which should point out the dangerous errors, or, what are conceived to be, the dangerous errors of that denomination to which I belong. Personalities—at least offensive personalities, I utterly disclaim; and the expedient of introducing the names of certain public characters into this work, is resorted to for the purpose
of more effectually directing attention to that pernicious system which it is designed to expose and condemn. Should this reasoning appear inconclusive and inadequate to the purpose for which it is designed, then let this question of propriety be left as a mere matter of opinion,--the correctness of which may be affirmed or denied, without any prejudice to the claims of justice, or any violation of the courtesies of life.
It will readily be allowed that, if Puseyism is right, dissenters --and especially dissenting ministers must be fearfully wrong. In the “Tracts for the Times” it is asserted, and re-asserted and repeated, ad nauseam that all such characters, however distinguished for piety or benevolence, must be delivered over to uncovenanted mercies. But what those mercies are, or what is the proof of their existence, no information is vouchsafed; so that dissenters are of all men most miserable,-exposed to obloquy in this world, and in the world to come delivered over to some undefinable condition, which, after all, may be nothing better than the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
To what extent the Canterbury clergy may participate in this uncharitable dogma, and rash speculation about our future state, I cannot pretend to say. But I may fairly assume that, in common with Tractarianism, you very generally maintain that it is wrong, and even wicked, for any man to assume the ministerial character, who is not episcopally ordained: and that without such ordination, the gospel cannot be properly preached, nor the sacraments properly administered. I have therefore ventured (in a spirit I trust equally remote from rudeness on the one hand, or of pusillanimity on the other) to dedicate to you a book which is designed to prove that this notion,--this origo mali of the Puseyite system is unscriptural and absurd.
I think I have succeeded in doing so; but knowing that I am not infallible, and that all men are liable to err; I should take it as an act of kindness, to have my statements and conclusions examined by those whom I have the honor to address, and who entertain sentiments adverse to those advocated in this book. Having preached the gospel for several years, the question is to me highly important: for if your views of the ministry be correct, I, and myriads more are doing wrong-utterly wrong: we ought to seek episcopal ordination, or secular employment, or the retirement of private life; lest, failing to be admonished by the • Tracts for the Times,' we should be destroyed by the fire which consumed Corah and his company, or by the abyss that swallowed up Dathan and Abiram.* In the archives of the city of Canterbury, there is the following dark entry. 1535. Paid 14s. 8d. for bringing an heretic from London. For a load of wood to burn him, 2s., for gunpowder, 1d.; for a stake and staple, 3d. Now it is chiefly on account of the intolerance of this system, that I feel alarm; and this alarm must be part of my apology for this address. The Oxford party, if not a numerous one, is already a highly influential one in the parliament of this country. Only let the first Lord of the Treasury (who is in fact the head of the church) be decidedly favorable to their views, and there would be the resurrection of archbishop Laud, and of that power which would burn men for their religion, and require the sacrifice of their bodies to atone for the errors of their faith.
* Mr. Glover, rector of Charlton, Dover, has published a book in which he labors to prove that any minister however holy, or useful, if a dissenter is guilty of a crime similar to that of Corah and deserving of a similar punishment. But it seems never to have occurred to Mr. G, that Corah being a Levite was one of the clerical order, and there. fore necessarily associated with the priesthood in the service of the sanctuary. Now as dissenting ministers are not allowed by this rector to be of the clerical order at all, what propriety can there be in admonishing them by an example like this? would it not be much more suitable to make an appropriation of it to the case of some of the inferior clergy who might aspire to more exalted stations in the church than wbat the constituted authorities had assigned them.
It is true that Corah, under an antiquated dispensation of religion was consumed by fire for aspiring to the priesthood; but it is not true that this case conveys any reproach of the dissenting minister. If indeed the order of the English clergy were as manifestly and as exclusively called of God as was the order of Aaron, then certainly it would be the most aggravated sin for any other order of men to assume their sacred functions. But this is the very point to be established, and until it is established the dissenting ministry cannot be condemned by the example of Corah. Indeed, the whole of Mr. Glover's reasoning on this point is as striking an example as can well be imagined of what is called the petitio principii, or begging the question. Take this as a specimen: “I have St. Jude's authority to denounce all separatists as sensual, profane, having not the spirit.” Now here the Rector takes it for granted that all who are separate from the church of England, are necessarily separate from the church of Christ as well as separate from purity and spirituality of mind. Not only is this most uncharitable ; but most unreasonable ; for though many good men and good ministers are in the church of England, yet no two things can be more dissimilar than the church of Christ as exhibited in the New Testament, and the church of Christ as exhibited in the constitution of the church of England. How much does the character of the body depend on the character of the head both in a figurative and in a literal point of view. Now who is the head of the church of Christ ? Christ himself. But who is the head of the church of England ? The chief magistrate, “who” in the very words of the act of parliament, " is vested with all power to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; and archbishops, bishops and archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical but by and under the King's Majesty." Now as it is not essential that the head of the church should have any piety at all, and as he may be as wicked and as profligate as Charles the II, how can the body of such a head be the church of Christ? The book of sports was perfectly consistent with the church of England, but not with the church of Christ.
But supposing for the sake of argument that Mr. Glover was as certainly in the succession as Paul himself was an apostle. How can his uncourteous and even inflammatory language be justified ? Paul says “ the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves, (2 Tim. 2-24) yet Mr G. in addressing his dissenting brethren, says, "you may think it my duty to speak to you soft words and to win you to the fold you neglect." Let no such delusion possess you. Liniments and emulsions are not suited to your disease.
I really think that you are in error, with regard to the nature of the christian ministry, and that your right to it, or at least your exclusive right to it is grounded on a mere fiction ; but if my statements are contrary to fact, or my conclusions are contrary to reason, I believe that you are fully competent to prove them to be so, and in a manner so clear, and so convincing, as inevitably to procure for me the pity, or the reproach of all reasonable and religious men. But I am well aware that some haughty spirit might rise up and say, “ Treat the book, and the author of it, with sovereign contempt--stoop not to such ignoble warfare: let it never be said that an apostolic successor could condescend to notice the production of a dissenting teacher.” This is poor human nature, or the offspring of vanity and pride. But that master whom we profess to serve, and before whose judgmentseat we must all appear--never treated even his enemies with sovereign contempt. But I am not your enemy; but the enemy of that system with which so many of the clergy are necessarily connected. For a pious churchman, I feel as much affectionate regard as for a pious dissenter; and the occupancy of my pulpit by the archbishop of Canterbury, would give me no alarm, provided he preached the truth as it is in Jesus. Party spirit might say, “He is not of your denomination ;'' but this would be nothing to the purpose. Is he“ a faithful man, and able to teach others also ?" This is before all conventional names,- all worldly pomp, and all prescriptive rights. This is God's qualification, and is as far superior to the money qualification,—the state qualification-and the university qualification, as God's ways are superior to our ways, and as the heavens are high above the earth. The case is inveterate. Caustic and the blister are necessary to reduce the active influence of the virus which is cankering your spiritual life.” Now as these fiery sentences are directed not against the profligate and profane : but against dissenters who may be, and who in many cases are holy men of God, it would appear that no crime was so great as the exercise of private judgment in religion, and that measures similar to surgical operations should be resorted to for correcting it. At any rate the caustic and the blister are rather ominous words and should perhaps make us thankful that the fire by which Corah was consumed is not placed at the disposal of the rector of Charlton.
Mr. G. would apply the caustic and the blister in the case of dissenters; but what remedies would he apply to the case of the three hundred ministers and members of the established church, who have formally protested against his error on the subject of the christian ministry. Now they say, “ that there is no scriptural authority for asserting that those only are to be esteemed true ministers of Christ, who have received episcopal ordination.” What can Mr. G. say to this ? here are three hundred of the most distinguished names of the church of England, formally protesting against the “uninterrupted succession.” Mr. Glover may contradict Mr. Braham, Mr. Plumtre, Baptist Noel, Hugh Mc. Neil, and the rest of the three hundred ; but if he does, what becomes of the boasted unity of his own church?