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. 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, He "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. LECT. XII. PRELATIC DIVINITY LEADS TO POPERY. 281 relation of the party, also a minister of the Church of England." In the same work for January, 1841,1 it is reported as "an indubitable fact, that several young ladies and some young gentlemen have lately found their way to the mystical Babylon via Oxford." That these are but examples of conversions which are rapidly increasing through the same causes, is insisted upon in the same work. "We have several times," say they,2 "noticed the havoc which Dr. Wiseman and other Roman catholic controversialists are making among unstable protestants, by the aid of the suicidal admissions of the Oxford tracts." "Divines of this class," says Dr. Wiseman, "whether living or dead, have been more than once subservient to the spread of catholicity. The late Mr. Vaughan of Leicester, was ever most assiduous in preaching to his protestant flock, on the highchurch doctrine of authority in matters of faith, on the sin of dissent, and the unsafety of those who submitted and adhered not to the church; and the consequence was, that several of his congregation, convinced by his arguments, but following them up to their real conclusions, passed over to the catholic faith, and became zealous members of our holy religion. We had the pleasure of being acquainted with one who for years had exercised the ministry in the established religion, but became a convert to the truth, and, in his old age, took orders in the church. We asked him on one occasion," says Wiseman, "by what course he had been brought to embrace our religion, with so many sacrifices? He informed us that he had always been a zealous high-churchman, and had studied and held the opinions of the old (no, not the old, but the innovating Laudite) English divines. He had thus firmly upheld the authority of the church; he had believed in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the blessed eucharist; he had regretted the destruction of ceremony and religious symbols in worship, and had fully satisfied himself on the authority of his leaders, that many catholic practices usually much decried, were blameless, and might be even salutary. His religious principles being thus formed upon the doctrines of that school, he could not avoid noticing that, practically, they were not held by the church in which he had learned them; he looked around him for some place where they might be found, and to his astonishment discovered, that among catholics his theory of christianity alone existed in a perfect and harmonious scheme. He had little or nothing to change; he 1) See p. 21. 2) Lond. Chr. Obs. for 1838, pp. 821, 823. merely transferred his allegiance from a party to a church, and became a catholic, that he might remain a consistent protestant!"" As illustrative of the popish tendency of that system of which the prelatic doctrine of apostolic succession is the radiating centre of emanating light, we have thus given the conversion of many individuals through its direct instrumentality to the Romish church. To these we are sorry in being able to allude to the case of an individual, who is every way capable of rightly judging upon the merits of the case; who has given unusual attention to the whole bearings of this extensive controversy; and whose present convictions, in favor of the Roman catholic church, were materially influenced by the study of these Anglican divines. This most estimable individual has himself informed me, and allowed me to say, that, in coming to his present 1) "FACTS SPEAK.-From some late London papers we take the following facts,' says the Episcopal Recorder, of Philadelphia, (for February, 1841,) "showing what is the practical influence of the ductrines of the new Oxford sect upon those to whom they are taught. We deem it a solemn duty to keep our readers informed of these facts: "The opinions they advocate are so pregnant with danger to the best interests of the protestant church, of that church for which our fathers suffered peril, persecution, and even death itself, I cannot forbear pointing out a case which has recently come to my knowledge, (and I fear it is not a solitary one,) in which the members of the Romish church boldly and triumphantly point to the writings of Keble, Newman, &c. in support of their own idolatrous worship. The circumstance to which I refer is this. A lady has recently become a convert to the Romish faith, and a protestant friend in the neighborhood, out of an earnest desire for the welfare of her soul, wrote to her a most affectionate letter on the subject, pointing out some of the absurdities and inconsistencies of the church into which she had entered. The lady wrote in reply a very long epistle, evidently dictated by her priest, in which she refers to the writings of Keble, Newman, &c., to show that though there was a slight difference between the two churches on the subject of tran-substantiation, yet that they (Keble and Newman) held the doctrine of the real presence; maintained the authority of tradition; objected to the Bible being the only ground-work of the protestant faith, and in fact differed in no material point from the church of Rome. The writer maintains that we are to be content to call the statements of these writers errors, or anti-scriptural vagaries, for these eminent divines hold them to be the doctrines of the protestant church, and consider those in the light of dissenters who differ from them. Now, sir, admitting that the Oxford Tract writers do not so fully and entirely agree with the church of Rome, as her priests and people assert them to do, yet it must be evident to every candid mind, that the tendency of their doctrines is most injurious to the best interests of religion; and when a convert to the church of Rome quotes their writings in justification of what she has done, I think it can no longer be doubted but that they are to be numbered among the most dangerous enemies the Church of England ever had to contend against. What, then, are we to do? if these are right, why have we separated ourselves from the church of Rome? But if their works be evil, if they be blind leaders of the blind, if they be secretly undermining the foundations of our church, or if they be actively engaged in bringing converts within the pale of the popish communion, how is it that our bishops do not prevent men from eating the bread of the church, while they are doing all that in them lies for its destruction?"" |