POEMS BY JOHN CHARLES EARLE. No. VIII. THE PEBBLE IN THE BROOK. I SAW a smooth stone in the brook Which through the rippling foam would stream, Thus, Saviour, on thy placid breast No. IX. THE ASTRONOMY of the Bible. THE truths of Scripture, like the stars of night, Low at thy shrine, adoring, Lord, I kneel; And thy loved volume, through this mortal night, Till by thy throne the wide expanse I see, And walk that starry universe with thee, Through all thy word, through all Redemption's plan; And learn of thee thine own astronomy. CAUSES OF THE RECENT GROWTH OF POPERY. [IN our review of the work of the Bishop of Vermont, we intimated our intention of touching on some of the numerous and important questions, which the general aspect of the times had forced on that able prelate. As, however, the subject was found far too extensive for the limits of a review, a correspondent has undertaken the task for us, and especially in reference to the recent growth of Popery.] TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. SIR,-In your number for August, a correspondent has accused the writers of the Oxford Tracts of having spoken too mildly of the idolatry of the Romish Church. Not having seen the particular tract to which he alludes, I am unable to say any thing in explanation of it; but I write this in order to protest against the principle which I apprehend is involved in the letter of your correspondent, viz. that every sound Protestant is bound to charge idolatry on the Romanists. At a time when popery is rearing its head, and augmenting its influence among us, it is right that we should consider what really is popery, and what is not; instead of being led away by mere names of hereditary clamour and partisanship, the very exaggerations of which have caused already an immense reaction, and been one of the most stealthy, yet efficient causes, of its modern revival. If then, Sir, it be essential to Protestantism to charge idolatry on the Romish Church, there is a large number of great and venerable names which must be excluded from the catalogue of Protestantism, whom, nevertheless, it would be very unpalatable to you, and your readers, to give up. The great pillars of orthodoxy, who were the lights of the Church of England from the reign of James I. to the Revolution of 1688, it may surprise your correspondent to learn, maintained the negative; or at least spoke of the use of images and pictures by that church in a way which would assuredly, in the present day, be called secret popery. I will name one only, but one who is a host in himself-Jeremy Taylor. That great writer maintains in his works, especially in his Life of Christ, that since in all the enumerations of the Decalogue occurring in the New Testament, in six different places, the second and fourth commandments are omitted, our Lord thereby actually abrogated the prohibition against images and the law of the Sabbath. He appeals also to the very slight notice taken of these commandments, nay, the almost total silence about them in the New Testament, as confirmatory of this opinion; and these writers rest the exclusion of images from the Church, only on the ground of expediency and the abuses which had accompanied it; and the religious observance of the Lord's day solely on the original authority of the Church, and the commands of the christian magistrate. Certainly, those who claim the authority of the fourth commandment for the latter institution, are bound, as Paley shrewdly remarks, to show as explicit a command for the change of the day from the seventh to the first of the week, as they can for the original appointment; and, moreover, it seems certain that the first Christians, for many generations, did not observe the institution in the sense which is now-a-days contended for. The mighty civil and religious blessings flowing from it, render it a painful and odious task to overthrow any of the grounds on which it has been long observed hitherto; but as the late discussions in parliament have made the fact known, that a very large portion of Christians, in every age, have rejected the fourth commandment as the grounds of the christian observance of Sunday; and as it is dangerous to rest it on a disputed foundation; I do not see why we should not apply the well-known adage to this case-Magna est veritas, et prævalebit. God can preserve his own institutions, without the misguided efforts of human zeal, or "the pious frauds" of man's device! The institution, in short, is unassailable on the grounds thus stated; while there is great danger in resting it on any fact or doctrine which may be, and has been, so extensively disputed. Any individual, however, who believes that he is bound to observe it in obedience to the fourth commandment, may safely entertain his opinion, seeing it relates not to any of the fundamental articles of the christian faith; but the same person would surely not be justified in condemning James I., and Charles I., and the great body of the bishops and divines, who maintained along with them an opinion against its being observed with puritanical scrupulousness and superstition, as secret papists. I certainly am not going to palliate the use of images among the Romanists. The Pope himself has been seen, when he visits the various shrines of St. Peter's Church on Good Friday, not only to kiss the bronze toe of St. Peter, but actually to rub his forehead against it, as if the statue could communicate some benefit by its contact; and there is reason to fear that in many instances, if not idolatry, something fearfully akin to it, is encouraged by the practice. But even the English Church would stand condemned by the Greeks, who only tolerate unshaded pictures. The emblematic dove carved over our altars, and the pictures by eminent masters, which are sometimes seen in our churches, would call forth the anathema of their canons; and certainly are infringements of the second commandment, in the sense in which it is usually applied against the Romish Church. Let it, moreover, be borne in mind that whatever be the practice, the doctrine of that Church is as strong against idolatry as our own; that she formally disclaims it, and anathematizes any one who should give what is termed Latreia even to the Virgin, or to any one save the Persons of the Holy Trinity: and with regard to the Artolatry, (worship of the Host,) it is given under the notion that Christ is both bodily, and in his whole divinity, present in the bread. It may be said, however, that the members of the Church of England are bound to regard the Papists as idolaters; and that such is her plain doctrine. I grant that in the declaration against Transubstantiation, idolatry was charged against the Papists; but that was imposed by anthority of parliament, and was never formally declared an article of religion by any church-authority; and, after all, a mere article of religion is not an article of faith, which last alone are fundamental, and as such equally obligatory upon all. Neither do the Articles of our Church anywhere confirm this charge of idolatry: the Homilies, indeed, distinctly make the charge, and I fear on grounds which no Papist can satisfactorily challenge; but then the Homilies are only subscribed to as containing "a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times," that is, the times when they were written; but this by no means binds us to maintain all and singular the words, phrases, and assertions therein made. The declaration, indeed, at the end of the Communion Service, does say that the sacramental bread and wine being unchanged, (but this the Papists deny,) it were idolatry to worship them. This was, I believe, not added till the last review; and, at any rate, none but the clergy are called on to subscribe to it. Let not this be supposed written to palliate the corruptions of the Church of Rome, (for on these points her practice and her doctrines are grievous corruptions); but simply for the purpose of showing that it is not essential to Protestantism to hold these opinions concerning these her corruptions; and that, therefore, those who suppose popery to consist in these things, really mistake her essential features, and by their absurd and exaggerated views upon them are helping her forward, and aiding her in concealing those parts of her system where her strength lies, and from whence alone the true danger is to be dreaded. It is well known that the policy of Queen Elizabeth, who certainly knew what popery was, and was no ordinary judge of the means by which it was to be combated, caused certain expressions and declarations in the Liturgy of Edward VI. to be omitted in the Prayer-book, because they were offensive to the Romanists; and her policy was so far successful, that they communicated in the Church of England during the first eleven years of her reign. The monarchs who succeeded her, and the great school of divines above-named, took a similar course. They seem to have looked on the Romish Church as a very corrupt branch of the universal church, but still not as utterly cut off from it— not as apostate. Great as were her corruptions in their eyes, they were still regarded not as reaching to the fundamentals of religion, or depriving her of the christian name. It was the Puritans, of whom afterwards Bishop Burnet remarked, that the whole of their religion consisted in an extreme hatred of popery, who condemned Hooker, because he maintained the possibility of salvation to our forefathers living in the English Church before the Reformation: and Joseph Mede found himself deprived of all hope of preferment, though in every other respect a very high-churchman, by Archbishop Laud, for the single reason that he maintained that the Pope was Antichrist, and "the man of sin."* After all, are there not as great corruptions among many who call themselves Protestants, (though I deny them the name,) as there are among the Romanists? If we may not bring forward the Socinians, and Joanna Southcote; yet what shall be said of the Irvingites? of Quakerism? of Methodism ? The last has its confessional, too, in the monthly class-meetings: and how near it approaches to popery may be seen by reading the able work of Bishop Lavington on the comparison between the two systems. What again is Calvinism? Surely, nothing can be worse, more mischievous, than the doctrines of Those who wish to see the opinions of our great divines on this difficult point, will find them fully detailed in a very able sermon, entitled "Antichrist. A Discourse on the Thirteenth Chapter of the Apocalypse. By the Rev. William Burgh, A. B, Holdsworth, London." irrespective predestination and reprobation! And where did Calvin learn these doctrines? From the Latin Church herself, and her favourite schoolmen. Bishop Tomline says:* "Dean Tucker has shown, in his letters to Dr. Kippis, that at the time just preceding the Reformation, the Church of Rome, in respect to predestination, grace, free-will, and perseverance, was truly Calvinistical.' Now, it is in this very respect that the able work of Bishop Hopkins, which you, Sir, have just reviewed, is calculated to do such good service. Leaving the absurd and foolish charges of vulgar and fanatic controversialists, and dealing with the Church of Rome in the spirit of christian moderation and charity, because he knows the position he has assumed against her is impregnable, the Bishop, as well as his editor, Mr. Melvill, has had recourse to the great catholic principles of our old divines. He sees that popery does not consist in this or that particular error, and that the danger to ourselves does not arise from her particular corruptions, but from the whole system itself; from her spirit of earthly ambition, her perverted morality, her claims to be the mother and mistress of all other churches; and he has pointed out the only likely means under Providence, whereby the evil spirit may be exorcised out of her. There is one important inquiry, however, necessary, which does not seem to have been any part or parcel of the plan so ably executed by the Bishop, viz. an investigation into the causes of the recent growth and revival of popery. These, with your permission, I design to investigate: a more important subject cannot surely be discussed at the present day, although its discussion seems to have been hitherto very generally declined, from the painful and delicate nature of the task, or its extreme difficulty. G. P. ITERATION OF BAPTISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER. SIR, There is a passage from Hooker quoted in the S. P. C. K. Family Bible, on the text Eph. iv. 5, so precisely apposite to the question of your correspondent Phoenix, regarding the "need of a fresh baptism," that I beg to forward it for his information, and for the guidance of those who entertain any doubt upon this important point. "Iteration of baptism once given, hath always been thought a manifest contempt of that ancient apostolic aphorism, One Lord, one faith, one baptism:' baptism not only one, inasmuch as it hath everywhere the same substance, and offereth unto all men the same grace: but one also, for that it ought not to be received by any one man above once. We serve that Lord, which is but one, because no one can be joined with him; we embrace that faith which is but one, because it admitteth no innovation; that baptism we receive which is but one, because it cannot be received often. For how should we practise iteration of baptism, and yet teach that we are by baptism born anew; that by baptism we are admitted unto the heavenly society of the saints; that • Elements of Christian Theology, Article XVII. VOL. XXI. NO. X. |