the fundamental principles of their system? They are hailed in this country by Romish priests; they are hailed in Ireland by Romish writers in reviews; yea, they are hailed even at Rome as harbingers of good, as the advocates and defenders of those principles which cannot fail eventually, if they gain ground, to lead to the re-establishment of popery in this country." "The Popery of Oxford.-It is a question considerably canvassed," says the London (Episcopal) Record, "to what extent Puseyism or tractarianism prevails among us. But wherever the truth lies in relation to its actual extent, there is no question that it occupies a much greater space than hitherto in the public eye. Not confined to the clergy, it occupies the attention of the laity; not shut up in the halls of Oxford, or confined to the columns of the tracts,' it engages the attention of the legislature, it is a chief subject in magazines and reviews, and even occupies with eager discussion the columns of the newspaper press. "Representations are given on the one hand, fitted, we think, to enlarge it beyond its due dimensions, and others are offered calculated to reduce it within limits beyond which it really expatiates. Let it be remembered, also, as an important point of the case, that it exercises also a very important influence on society and the church, even where its principles and practices in their grossness are not received. "To attempt to judge of it, as we have seen done, by estimating the number of the London clergy who have bowed their neck to the yoke, will not lead to a just conclusion. It is said, that not one medical man who had reached the age of forty, at the time of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood, ever received the truth; and it is not to be expected that men of the mature age of the London clergy generally, should hastily give in to new dogmas of this description. We suspect the direct power and influence are chiefly discernible among the younger clergy-among men at that unripe age, when it is difficult for the mind to distinguish between truth and falsehood, to separate the precious from the vile, and when the influence of names and office and learning, real or assumed, exercise a prodigious effect in the formation of opinions. And its direct influence, we have no doubt, is very great indeed, in drawing up the greater proportion of the clergy, including no inconsiderable part of the bench of bishops, to higher church principles than those they previously held, than which there cannot be a more captivating allurement for corrupt human nature. "But to whatever extent Puseyism has hitherto prevailed, we have reached the state of mind not to be greatly surprised though it had gained a tenfold higher point than we think it has hitherto reached. It is in its essential principle the religion of nature, as that stands opposed to the righteousness of God, and all men, till they are truly taught from above (except where early evangelical training has wrought speculatively into the mind correct doctrinal truth.) will, as earthy, cleave to that which is earthy, and reject the spiritual, to discern which they have no appropriate sense. ii. 14.) (1 Cor. "They [the Oxford writers] have got another gospel, far more obviously and palpably so, than that embraced by the ancient Galatian church. In principle they are resting on works equally with the Romish apostacy. They deny this, of course, as boldly as Rome denies it; but this does not alter the case. No doubt many of them decry this and that thing in Rome. No doubt two recent articles in the Quarterly Review, justly attributed, we have no doubt, to Professor Sewell, contain an elaborate and able attack on popery, exhibiting the danger of some of its principles, and of many of its machinations, to the peace and security of the state, and to the safety of that branch of the church of which he is a member. And it is asked, how is this fact consistent with the principles of Puseyism being naturally the same with those of popery? The answer is at hand. The leading and fundamental principles of their theology may be materially one, while in its development in religious observances, popery may have sunk into practices not necessarily arising from its fundamental unscriptural principles, and adopted also designs of universal empire, which, though appropriately following from her theological dogmas, and hostile to the civil and religious liberties of the world, are again not necessarily connected with her fundamental departure, in principle, from the truth of the gospel. The tractarians and Rome may differ from one another, in these matters, consistently with both of them being opposed to the fundamental principles of our apostolic church, of our great reformers, and of the revelation of God to mankind. "Puseyism, then, is an unhealthy life which has originated in the church, dissipating the spiritual sleep in which multitudes of her members lay enveloped. They have awoke to action, but they have not awoke to truth. They are teaching men, but it is not the gospel of Christ, but another gospel which they teach. We again refer those who doubt this fact, and who have any glimpse of the essential nature of the gospel of Christ, to professor Pusey's elaborated Treatise on Baptism, in the second volume of the Tracts for the Times. The difference produced by the change we see is this, instead of men being left alone in a state of religious indifference, they are roused to action in a wrong direction. "From such defenders of our church, may God in his mercy deliver us. What we want for our security is, that the voice from the pulpit may concur with the voice from the desk;-that the trumpet from both may have one sound; it will then be no 'uncertain' one, but in accordance with the word of God. "The Puseyites desire another teacher than the word of God, and accordingly they bring forward another witness to the truth, 'ANTIQUITY,' and place it on the same level. It is 'scripture and antiquity' which constitute their rule of faith. "This prop is indispensably necessary for their system. To make it stand they must have another witness. Rome, agreeing with them in this, proceeds a step further, and shuts from the eyes of the church the original and only true witness. "Puseyism, in fact, is but a revived form of opposition to the gospel. Spiritual sleep as surely leads men to eternal ruin as a perversion of the gospel can do. While, then, we are distressed with the progress of Puseyism, let us not be so distressed as if it had supplanted what was previously good. It may have done so in some few instances, but it may be accompanied with good fully counterbalancing this evil. It is in some respects well to awaken men to attention to religion, however erroneous the teaching. If, in God's mercy, the heart gets engaged, it will, sooner or later, be perceived that 'the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it, and the covering narrower than he can wrap himself in it.' Finding no rest to their souls there, they may be led to seek 'a more excellent way.' "Let us all remember this word, when we are deposed to think that some strange thing has happened to us, 'there must needs be heresies among us, that they that are proved may be made manifest;' and let us also remember that the leading scriptural method of supplanting all heresy, is with redoubled diligence to 'preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to them that are called, whether Jews or Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.'" LECTURE XII. THE PRELATICAL DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION ESSENTIALLY POPISH IN ITS TENDENCY AND RESULTS. THE SUBJECT CONCLuded. HAVING in the preceding lecture fully established our position, first, that the dogmas constituting what, in its present phase, is denominated the Oxford divinity, are necessarily connected with the doctrine of prelatic, apostolical succession; and secondly, that these dogmas are characteristically Romish ;our inference is unavoidable, namely, that the tendency of this doctrine of prelatic, apostolical succession, is necessarily and certainly towards popery; that it is, therefore, to be eschewed as evil by all who love protestantism as the true faith of the gospel, and who reject popery as being contrary to God's word. It may, however, be objected to this conclusion, that it is based merely upon opinion and theory, and not upon facts. Now, although any such objection would be most unreasonable, yet still it may be met by evidence from recent and notorious facts. Our first case will be the conversion of the Hon. G. Spencer, of England, who has recently gone over to the church of Rome, and is now one of its most enthusiastic devotees. He justly argued, that there was "no halfway house," and that consistency demanded that believing, as he did, the doctrines inculcated by these Anglican divines, and especially as it regarded scripture and tradition, he should unite himself with the church of Rome.1 1) See Lond. Christ. Obs. 1837, p. 146. In the London Christian Observer, for November, 1839, it is said, "The most conspicuous convert to Romanism of late years in England, is the Hon. G. Spencer; and he was led to it directly in the path Dr. Another case, which has excited much interest, is that of a young gentleman of the name of Biden, eldest son of an East India captain, who now holds a high official appointment at Madras. A full account of the circumstances of his conversion will be found in the London Christian Observer for January, 1841, drawn up by an approver of the Oxford Tracts, and the intimate companion of Mr. Biden.' He says, "his conversion and apostacy are ascribed to the writings of Dr. Pusey;" and the truth of this statement I can most positively affrm. "The staple of his conversation was derived from the Oxford tracts." "He told me he had abstained for days together from meat, in order, with his savings, to purchase Dr. Pusey's own, and other theological works of his (Dr. Pusey's) recommendation, more especially some of the early fathers; and to such had his exclusive attention been directed." "He attached," this writer further adds, "as much importance to the shape and fashion of his clerical habit as the pharisees of old to their phylacteries and hems; and spoke repeatedly of his intention to restore (as much as in him lay) the ancient discipline of the church in his choice of the alb, the cope, and other canonical vestments. This is one instance among many such." A writer in the London Christian Observer for August, 1840, gives from his own knowledge, another example illustrative of this tendency.2 "The father of the most influential Roman catholic gentleman in my neighborhood, was a clergyman of the Church of England, and a prebendary of one of our cathedrals. On one occasion he preached a sermon at Oxford, on the subject of the authority of the ministry, for which he received the thanks of most of the heads of Houses; with, however, the remark, made by one who dissented that he disapproved of such doctrines as nearly resembling Romanism, and that the preacher was almost a papist. The accuracy of this judgment was afterwards made manifest, by the perversion of the preacher to the church of Rome, in whose tenets he educated his children. I received this information from a near Hook asserts was never trodden in the way thither. He is known repeatedly to have declared, that from what Dr. Hook called high-church divines, he learned so much that he found that he needed to learn no more; and most especially in regard to the questions of tradition and the sacraments; and thus he was led from these high-church views in the Anglican pale to what he now considers to be true church views in that of Rome. We will corroborate our statement by a 1) See p. 659; also, pp. 660, 662. |