Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

general feeling existed that our Protestantism was perfectly secure; and this produced a corresponding feeling that controversy against Romanism was altogether needless. Under cover of this ignorance and apathy, the Papal hierarchy, by denying upon oath, before Committees of the British Parliament, those obnoxious principles of perfidy and intolerance to which they are pledged upon oath in their own system, contrived to present themselves and their people before the nation under the engaging aspect of persons injured and oppressed, because of their religious opinions. Sympathy was excited. Concessions were made. England, anxious to be liberal as well as kind, broke down her constitutional defences. The few faithful watchmen who sounded an alarm were discountenanced as impracticable bigots, and the sworn enemies of our country as she is, were admitted to the full enjoyment of her dearest and most powerful privileges. Facts are eloquent and convincing. The removal of political disabilities was one thing. The endowment of religious error is quite another thing. The connexion between the two was denied. Now it is seen. Maynooth moved the country; but it was an undisciplined, irregular movement, and therefore unsuccessful. Experience teaches. And now, an organization, wider and deeper far, marshalled also in sections, which, instead of crippling one another through jealousy, will stimulate one another by zeal, is heaving up the elements of a movement such as England has not witnessed for centuries, and such as no ministers of the Crown of England, advising the national endowment of Romanism, can possibly resist. Yes, we rejoice in the assurance (not without evidence) that Englishmen in every direction are beginning to see and feel the true merits of this question; to discern the real friends of true liberty, inseparable as it is from true religion; and to appreciate aright the dishonesty of those who have been seeking treacherously to undermine, the cold carelessness of those who have been consenting basely to betray, and the noble bold

ness of those who have been standing forward determinedly to defend their Protestant citadel.

Our social and political privileges as Britons, and our saving blessings as spiritual Christians, grew together. They have waxed and waned together. They stood and still stand together. They must continue together, whether to stand or fall. It is in a spirit of devout thankfulness to Almighty God for the prolonged blessing of our national Protestantism, that I desire to meditate and discuss its distinguishing characteristics, as contrasted with the system of Romanism.

On no theme is it more essential to define our terms than on this. With an imposing claim to immutability, and a real readiness to act, as opportunity may serve, on the most obnoxious of her decrees, Romanism does, nevertheless, present a more than chameleon aspect, changing her colour, shape, and voice, in plastic adaptation to surrounding circumstances. Diluted down to the verge of mere negation, or misrepresented by artful and arbitrary suppression in the discourses of Dr. Wiseman and other men of the times, Romanism wears a mask for the deception of the unwary. This wily versatility in her administration must not be lost sight of in considering the characteristics of Romanism, though by the term I would rather be understood to mean the system itself as it is, when nothing is to be gained by concealment or hypocrisy ; the system as developed in canons, catechisms, and decretals; matured under Gregory VII.; consolidated under Clement, Adrian, and Innocent; and stereotyped at Trent.

By Protestantism, I would be understood to mean the religion of Holy Scripture-not more and not less. The religion of all Holy Scripture, in its simplest, most obvious, and most grammatical construction: not nominal Protestantism, caricatured in Roman colours by Laud, and now again by the mediæval resuscitations of the Tractarian school: not ultraProtestantism, setting at nought the miracles and mysteries of

redemption by the Son of God, and exhibiting a bare and bald counterfeit of Christianity as a rationalistic discovery of a high code of morals and an improved system of civilisation; but sound and solid Protestantism, as revealed in the Bible, in opposition to Pharisees and Sadducees; as exemplified in the history of the primitive Christian Church, in opposition to Sabellians, Donatists, and other heretics; and as recovered and restored by the mingled fidelity and moderation of such men as Cranmer and Jewel, in opposition to the traditionary innovations of Rome.

Understanding so the two systems of Romanism and Protestantism, I proceed to contrast a few of their characteristics as developed

I. In their respective teaching.

II. In their respective worship.

I. A distinguishing characteristic of Romanism, as developed in her teaching, is legality.

All her genuine disciples are under law; under the principle of the old covenant: that is, the principle of bargain or condition; duty performed and reward deserved; or duty neglected and penalty incurred.

If it be asked, How, then, does Romanism deal with the gospel the answer is, she lavishes all the riches of revealed grace on the sacrament of baptism; and then, for all who sin after baptism, that is, for all her disciples without exception, she has nothing better than what she very expressively calls a new law. The working out of this new law becomes of course a most important matter, and to this end Romanism has invented the sacrament of penance. Connected as this is with auricular confession and priestly absolution, it brings every real Romanist into habitual contact with his priest, as the keeper of his conscience under violations of the law, and the arbiter of his penances to be performed or penalties to be endured in

order to make satisfaction for those violations. The priest is the lawgiver under the new law. Thus the penitent is practically estranged from Christianity, as a thing exhausted on his baptism; and busily engaged with Romanism, as the only engine of his restoration and salvation. His priest is his only accredited engineer, so he is in his priest's hands for time and eternity.

These statements might be largely confirmed, not by prejudiced or interested witnesses, but by citations from their own most guarded version of their teaching in the canons of the Council of Trent on penance. It is there solemnly declared,

with a curse upon all who shall deny it, that "penance is truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord for the benefit of the faithful, to reconcile them to God as often as they shall fall into sin after baptism;" that "penance is rightly called a second plank after shipwreck;" that "the words of the Lord our Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye shall forgive, etc., are to be understood of the power, in the priesthood, of forgiving or retaining sins in the sacrament of penance;" that "sacramental confession was instituted by divine command, and is necessary to salvation;" that " confession of every sin is possible, and that all Christians of both sexes are bound to observe the same once a year;" that "we can make satisfaction to God for our sins, . . by punishments enjoined by the priest, . . . such as fastings, prayers, alms, or other works of piety."

...

Let the practical effect of this, upon those who believe it, be fairly considered, and it will be seen that as the fundamental characteristic of Romish teaching is legality in principle, so in practice it is what may be called ecclesiasticality as distinguished from morality. It consists not in obedience to the known and unalterable commandments of God, but in compliance with the uncertain, variable, and arbitrarily apportioned impositions of the priest. These are dignified indeed with the title of the commandments of the Church; but in this connexion the

Church is a mere fancy, an ideal, an intangible nondescript, having, to the masses of mankind, neither local habitation nor name nor power, save in the persons of the priest and bishop.

Here then is slavery, compared with which the condition of a negro under the lash, or of a convict in the hulks, may be comparative freedom. For there, the body only is enslaved; but here, the mind and heart.

"At the early age of seven years, the Roman Catholic child is taught to kneel before his confessor, and ransack his young heart for sin. From that time till the hour of his death, he is bound under the heaviest penalties to disburden his soul at stated periods to the priest. Nor is he allowed to conceal anything. It is not enough to confess actions and words. Thoughts, purposes, wishes must be equally disclosed. The laws of delicacy are rudely violated, and the timid female dares not refuse to answer questions which other lips than those of her spiritual instructor would not have presumed to utter in her presence; she dares not even to withhold from him such feelings and imaginations as are kept secret from the dearest earthly friend. It is industriously inculcated that concealment is mortal sin. Hence absolution often fails to produce comfort. Some trivial matter, some thought which the penitent was ashamed to avow, remained unacknowledged. The tender conscience is racked and torn with agony; no peace can be enjoyed till all obstacles are surmounted, and the tongue is made willing to betray the most retired privacies of the soul. Thus the priest becomes entire master. Confession may not reach the ear of Deity but by his intervention.”1

The effects of this system on the moral character of the priests are of the most deplorable kind. As a celebrated modern writer justly remarks: "The practice of auricular confession would entail a thousand evils and dangers upon the parties concerned, even apart from the unnatural condition to

1 Cramp's Text-Book of Popery, p. 193, 2d edit.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »