Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

throne, a new reformation, different in its articles and liturgy from that of Edward VI., was set on foot, and moulded, not according to Scripture, but to her orders. She deposed all the bishops except one, "the calamity of his see," as he was called ;* and required the new ones, whom she appointed, to renounce certain exercises, which they declared to be agreeable to the Word of God, but which she found not to agree with her system of politics. She even in full parliament threatened to depose them all, if they did not act conformably to her views.‡

V. The more strictly the subject is examined, the more clearly it will appear, that it was not in consequence of any investigation of the Scriptures, either public or private, that the ancient Catholic religion was abolished, and one or other of the new Protestant religions set up in the different northern kingdoms and states of Europe, but in consequence of the politics of princes and statesmen, the avarice of the nobility and gentry, and the irreligion and licentiousness of the people. I will even advance a step further, and affirm that there is no appearance of any individual Protestant, to whatever sect he belongs, having formed his creed by the rule of Scripture alone. For do you, sir, really believe that those persons of your communion, whom you see the most diligent and devout in turning over their Bibles, have really found out in them the thirty-nine articles, or any other creed which they happen to profess? To judge more certainly of this matter, I wish those gentlemen who are the most zealous and active in distributing Bibles among the Indians and Africans in their different countries, would procure, from some half dozen of the most intelligent and serious of their proselytes, who have heard nothing of the Christian faith by any other means than their Bibles, a summary of what they respectively understand to be the doctrine and the morality taught in that sacred volume. What inconsistent and nonsensical symbols should we not witness! The truth is, Protestants are tutored from their infancy, by the help of catechisms and creeds, in the systems of their respective sects; they are guided by their parents and masters, and are influenced by the opinions and example of those with whom they live and converse. Some particular texts of Scripture are strongly impressed upon their minds, and others of an

* Anthony Kitchen, so called by Godwin, de Præsul, and Camden. †This took place with respect to what was termed prophesying, then practised by many Protestants, and defended by Archbishop Grindal and the other bishops, as agreeable to God's word: nevertheless, the queen obliged them to suppress it. Col. Eccl. Hist. P. II. p. 554, &c.

See her curious speech in Parliament, March 25, 1585, in Stow's Annals.

apparently different meaning are kept out of their view, or glossed over; and above all, it is constantly inculcated to them, that their religion is built upon Scripture alone. Hence, when they actually read the Scriptures, they fancy they see there, what they have been otherwise taught to believe; the Lutheran, for example, that Christ is really present in the sacrament; the Calvinist, that he is as far distant from it as heaven is from earth; the Churchman, that baptism is necessary for infants; the Baptist, that it is an impiety to confer it upon them; and so of all the other forty sects of Protestants enumerated by Evans in his Sketch of the Different Denominations of Christians, and of twice forty other sects whom he omits to mention.

When I remarked that our blessed. Master, Jesus Christ, wrote no part of the New Testament himself, and gave no orders to his apostles to write it, I ought to have added, that if he had intended it to be, together with the Old Testament, the sole rule of religion, he would have provided means for their being able to follow it; knowing, as he certainly did, that 99 in every 100, or rather 999 in every 1000, in different ages and countries, would not be able to read at all, and much less to comprehend a page of the sacred writings. Yet no such means were provided by him; nor has he so much as enjoined it on his followers in general to study letters.

Another observation on this subject, and a very obvious one is; that among those Christians who profess that the Bible alone is the rule of their religion, there ought to be no articles, no catechisms, no sermons, nor other instructions. True it is, that the abolition of these, however incompatible they are with the rule itself, would quickly undermine the Established Church, as its clergy now begin to understand; and, if universally carried into effect, would, in the end, efface the whole doctrine and morality of the Gospel ;* but this consequence (which is inevitable) only shows more clearly the falsehood of this exclusive rule. In fact, the most enlightened Protestants find themselves here in a dilemma, and are obliged to say and unsay, to the amusement of some persons, and the pity of others. They cannot abandon the rule of the Bible alone, as

*The Protestant writers, Kett and Robison, have shown, in the passage above quoted, that the principle of private judgment tends to undermine Christianity at large; and Archdeacon Hook, in his late charge, shows by an exact statement of capital convictions in different years, that the increase of immorality has kept pace with that of the Bible societies.

† One of the latest instances of the distress in question, is exhibited by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Marsh. In his publication, The Inquiry, p. 4, he says very truly," the poor (who constitute the bulk of mankind) cannot, without as

explained by each one for himself, without proclaiming their guilt in refusing to hear the church, and they cannot adhere to it, without opening the floodgates to all the impiety and immorality of the present age upon their own communion. I shall have occasion hereafter to notice the claims of the Established Church to authority, in determining the sense of Scripture, as well as in other religious controversies: in the mean time I cannot but observe, that her most able defenders are frequently obliged to abandon their own, and adopt the Catholic rule of faith. The judicious Hooker, in his defence of the Church of England, writes thus: "Of this we are right sure, that nature, Scripture, and experience itself, have taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting to some judicial and definite sentence, whereunto neither parties that contendeth, may, under any pretence or color, refuse to stand. This must needs be effectual and strong. As for other means, without this, they seldom prevail."* Another most clear-headed writer, and renowned defender of the establishment, whom I had the happiness of being acquainted with, Dr. Balguy, thus expresses himself in a Charge to the Clergy of his archdeaconry: "The opinions of the people are and must be founded more on authority than reason. Their parents, their teachers, their governors, in a great measure, determine for them, what they are to believe and what to practise. The same doctrines, uniformly taught, the same rites constantly performed, make such an impression on their minds, that they hesitate as little in adInitting the articles of their faith, as in receiving the most established maxims of common life." With such testimonies before your eyes, ean you, dear sir, imagine that the bulk of Protestants have formed, or were designed to form their religion by the standard of Scripture? He goes on to say, speaking of controverted points: "Would you have them (the people) think for themselves? Would you have them hear and decide sistance, understand the Scriptures." Being congratulated on this important, yet unavoidable concession, by the Rev. Mr. Gandolphy, he tacks about in a public letter to that gentleman, and says, that what he wrote in his Inquiry concerning the necessity of a further rule than mere Scripture, only regards the establishment of religion, not the truth of it; just as if that rule were sufficient to conduct the people to the truth of religion, while he expressly says they cannot understund it!

*Hooker's Eccles. Polity, Pref. art. 6.

+ Discourses on various subjects, by T. Balguy, D.D., Archdeacon and Prebendary of Winchester. Some of these discourses were preached at the consecration of bishops, and published by order of the archbishop; some in charges to the clergy. The whole of them is dedicated to the king, whom the writer thanks for naming him to a high dignity, (the bishopric of Glou cester,) and for permitting him to decline accepting of it.

Discourses on various subjects, by T. Balguy, D.D. p. 257.

the controversies of the learned? Would you have them enter into the depths of criticism, of logic, of scholastic divinity? You might as well expect them to compute an eclipse, or decide between the Cartesian and Newtonian philosophy. Nay, I will go further: for I take upon myself to say, there are more men capable, in some competent degree, of understanding Newton's philosophy, than of forming any judgment at all concerning the abstruser questions in metaphysics and theology." Yet the persons, of whom the doctor particularly speaks, were all furnished with Bibles; and the abstruse questions, which he refers to, are: "Whether Christ did, or did not, come down from heaven?" whether "he died, or did not die, for the sins of the world?" whether "he sent his Holy Spirit to assist and comfort us, or whether he did not send him?"* The learned doctor elsewhere expresses himself still more explicitly on the subject of Scripture without church authority. He is combating the Dissenters, but his weapons are evidently as fatal to his own church as to theirs. "It has long been held among them that Scripture only, is the rule and test of all religious ordinances; and that human authority is to be altogether excluded. Their ancestors, I believe, would have been not a little embarrassed with their own maxim, if they had not possessed a singular talent of seeing every thing in Scripture which they had a mind to Almost every sect could find there its own peculiar form of church-government; and while they forced only their own imaginations, they believed themselves to be executing the decrees of heaven."

see.

I conclude this long letter with a passage to the present purpose from our admired theological poet :

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

AFTER all that I have written concerning the rule of faith, adopted by yourself, and other more rational Protestants, I have only yet treated of the extrinsic arguments against it. I now * Discourses on various subjects, by T. Balguy, D.D. p. 257.

+ Discourse VII. p. 126.

Dryden's Hind and Panther, Part. I.

therefore proceed to investigate its intrinsic nature, in order to show more fully the inadequacy, or rather the falsehood of it.

When an English Protestant gets possession of an English Bible, printed by Thomas Basket, or other "printer to the king's most excellent majesty," he takes it in hand with the same confidence, as if he had immediately received it from the Almighty himself, as Moses received the tables of the law on Mount Sinai, amidst thunder and lightning. But how vain is this confidence, whilst he adheres to the foregoing rule of faith! How many questionable points does he assume as proved, which cannot be proved, without relinquishing his own principles and adopting ours!

I. Supposing then you, dear sir, to be the Protestant I have been speaking of; I begin with asking you, by what means have you learnt what is the canon of Scripture, that is to say, which are the books that have been written by Divine inspiration; or indeed how have you ascertained that any books at all have been so written? You cannot discover either of these things by your rule, because the Scripture, as your great authority, Hooker shows* and Chillingworth allows, cannot bear testimony to itself. You will say that the Old Testament was written by Moses and the prophets, and the New Testament by the apostles of Christ and the evangelists. But admitting all this; it does not of itself prove that they always wrote, or indeed that they ever wrote under the influence of inspiration. They were, by nature, fallible men; how have you learnt that they were infallible writers? In the next place, you receive books, as canonical parts of the Testament, which were not written by apostles at all, namely, the gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; whilst you reject an authentic work of great excellence,† written by one who is termed in Scripture an apostle,‡ and declared to be full of the Holy Ghost :§ I speak of St. Barnabas. Lastly, you have no sufficient authority for asserting that the sacred volumes are the genuine composition of the holy personages whose names they bear, except the tradition and living voice of the Catholic Church; since numerous apocryphal prophecies and spurious gospels and epistles, under the same or equally venerable names, were circulated in the church, during its early ages, and accredited by different learned writers and holy fathers; while some of the really canonical books were rejected or doubted of by them. In short, it was not until the end of the fourth century, that the genuine

*Eccles. Polit. B. iii. sec. 8.

f St. Barnabas. See Grabe's Spicileg. and Cotlerus's Collect.

Acts, xiv. 13.

§ Acts, xi. 24.

« PredošláPokračovať »