Page images
PDF
EPUB

church of Rome, such as it was at the time of the Reformation, or whether it be any merit in, or plea in favour of, those who did not go out of it, let the reader judge.

Τα

It is also said that "the Roman Catholics profess the religion which they have received from their ancestors, British, or Saxon, or Norman." this it may be justly answered, that were the RomanCatholic religion now the same, in every essential point, with that professed by those ancestors, still the only question would remain which is of any real importance; and that is, Were those ancestors right, or were they wrong, in the religion they professed? Did they, or did they not, admit doctrines inconsistent with the Scriptures? The foundation of all Christianity is the revealed will of God, the Scriptures being received as such; though tradition may also be received, as far as it is NOT INCONSISTENT with them; yet beyond this no human authority can go, nor any considered as divine, unless under the equally absurd and impious supposition, that the Deity contradicts himself. Of an influence, not visibly testified, of the Holy Spirit, we can judge only by a comparison of that which is done by those who suppose or assert the presiding of that influence over their actions or determinations, with what we know to have been dictated by that Holy

*

* Though one revelation may supersede another, as to ceremonial institutes, or reveal additional circumstances; were a new revelation to subvert a prior one, as to moral precepts, or articles of faith, it would destroy faith itself.

[ocr errors]

Spirit. It is the rule given by our Saviour. By their fruits ye shall know them. If the Deity then has not given the rational faculties of the mind to lie dormant, as to its best interests; or, what is worse, made them and the senses apparently capable of discrimination, and imposes upon them; belief, in such case, would be idle, and conviction equally deficient of certainty, as to truth or falsehood. It is true, that in certain cases the assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised; but whether the occasion fulfils the terms of the promise, and, therefore, whether it is given on any particular occasion, must be proved by the fact, that the result is such, when compared with Scripture, as can reasonably be ascribed to that influence. Otherwise, there may be no bounds to imposture. It is true that council after council has asserted itself to act under such influence; and would to God they had not given, in most cases after the first council of Nice, too much reason to believe there was an influence presiding of a very different kind. At least Gregory Nazianzen seems to have thought so of those in his time; for he thus complains of them: *"To say the truth, I am disposed to avoid every assembling of the Bishops, for I have never seen any good end of a council, or that it remedied the evils, but rather added to them.”

[ocr errors]

Had it been, as it ought to have been, observed, that, in the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, the

*

Εχω μεν ούλως, ει δει θ' αληθες ειπειν, ωςε πανία σύλλογον φεύγειν επισκοπων ότι μηδεμιας συνοδου Τελος ειδον χρησον, μηδε λυσιν κακων μαλλον coxnxvias, n #godeOnxEv.-Greg. Naz. Ep. ad Procopium.

testimony of the Holy Ghost referred to was the conversion of Cornelius, by which it appeared that what they were about to decree did truly seem good to the Holy Ghost, (and no other reason for its seeming so is given,) it would have saved the church from many a grievous error. Where some equally valid testimony was not given, it is much to be feared that the councils, who asserted their being under his influence, may have been in danger of approaching rather too near to a sin declared to be unpardonable, in this world, or the next.

[ocr errors]

That the Romish church has, from the primitive age down to the council of Trent, varied in the explanations, additions, and restrictions, as to faith and discipline, is incontestable. Our complaint respects these no further than as they are inconsistent with the written word of God. It is also certain that, in several of these respects, the doctrine of the church of Rome at present is not the same with that of the English part of it, soon after the conversion of the Saxons. The homily of Elfrick, Bishop of Shireburne, written about A. D. 1000, and which was appointed publickly to be read in churches, says"There is a wide difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and this body, which, in the mystery of the passion of Christ, is daily received

* Multa differentiâ separantur corpus in quo passus est Christus, et hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur.Hoc corpus pignus est et species, illud ipsa veritas.-See Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Challenge made by a Jesuit, p. 81, 82.

by the faithful. This body is a pledge and figure; that the reality itself."

The principal point then of the modern Romish church, that is, transubstantiation, is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon church; and Archbishop Usher has proved the same of others of the principal points in which we differ.

For further information on the doctrinal part of the subject, I will beg leave to refer to the Archbishop's treatise itself; but, on the political part of it, there is an instance which bears so immediately on this part of the question of the present day, that it ought not to be passed over. This is the firm opposition of Alfred, the son of Egbert, and King of the Northumbrians, to the Papal supremacy. The occasion was this

Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, who was one of the most zealous adherents of his time to Rome, having exerted himself strenuously to introduce the Romish mode of observing Easter, and the Romish tonsure, which was round, whereas that of the British and Scottish churches was the shaving or perhaps polling the hinder part of the head; a council, at which the King, and Berthwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, presided, was held on the subject, and Wilfrid, being required to abdicate the See, appealed to the apostolic See; whereupon the King and Archbishop replied, that by so preferring its judgment to theirs he had made himself guilty, and should be condemned. Wilfrid was however permitted to depart, and went to Rome, where he laid his case before the Pope, and from him obtained a letter to Alfred and

66

Ethelred, King of the Mercians, enjoining them to assemble another council on the subject, and, if it should not be determined there, to refer it to Rome. Wilfrid, on his return, was well received by Ethelred, and by his advice sent two friends to request permission to bring the letter, and the decision of the Papal See, to Alfred. To their representations Alfred gave a reply that does honour to his memory. My venerable friends," said he, said he, " ask what is necessary for yourselves, and the respect I bear you will induce me to grant it. But, from this day forward, ask me nothing in favour of your master, Wilfrid. Never whilst I live will I alter what the Kings my predecessors, and an Archbishop with their council, and what I myself, with an Archbishop sent by the apostolic See, together with almost all the Prelates of Britain of your nation, (the Mercians,) have decreed.

The writer of the life adds, (as it might be expected,) that he was informed by credible witnesses, that Alfred, when he was dying, wished a reconciliation with Wilfrid; what is of more consequence is, that till that time he did not. Ethelred, in his latter days, very properly had his head shaved, and died

a monk.

It will not be easy to conceive, therefore, how the Roman Catholics of the present day can be said, in any proper sense, to have received their religion from their Saxon ancestors. As to their British ancestors, there must surely have been a great want of recollec. tion when the word British was inserted. Is it then necessary to recall to mind the absolute refusal of

« PreviousContinue »