תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Popery makes no difference in her denunciations against heretics, as in the Establishment, or as of other denominations. She curses that Church and the KING or the QUEEN, as fiercely as she curses the meanest subject of the realm. The pope thus cursed Queen Elizabeth as a heretic : "Moreover we do declare her to be DEPRIVED of her PRETENDED TITLE to the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever. And ALSO the nobility, subjects, and people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be for ever ABSOLVED from any such oath, and all manner of duty, of dominion, ALLEGIANCE, and obedience; as we also do by the authority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended TITLE to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid; and we do command and interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume NOT to OBEY HER, or her ministers, mandates, and LAWS; and those who shall do the contrary, we bind in the same sentence TO BE

ACCURSED.

"Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1570."-Bull of Pope Pius V.

This bull is given in "PERPETUAL MEMORIAL of the matter—that the bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor, has ALONE been made Prince over all people, and ALL KINGDOMS, to PLUCK UP, DESTROY, SCATTER, CONSUME, plant and build, that he may retain the faithful that are knit together with the bond of charity, in the unity of the Spirit, and present them spotless and unblameable to their Saviour."

These things show what POPERY Is, and what Protestants have ToO EXPECT FROM POPERY.

[ocr errors]

What, then, is the wisdom of Protestants? The watchword of the enemy is," Divide and conquer." Let the motto of Protestants be, "THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND OF PEACE. Let no Protestants set up exclusive, intolerant schemes against their fellow Protestants. He that does so is an enemy to Protestantism, and a friend to Popery. This Essay has been written to expose, refute, and put away a scheme of this kind, already sufficiently characterized. The author requests the co-operation of

every true Protestant in this design. If there are any defects in the Essay, (and the author is far from considering it faultless,) let them be pointed out and corrected. If any can do better, he wishes them success. May the great Head of the church pour the Spirit out upon ALL PIOUS MINISTERS, and upon ALL THEIR CONGREGATIONS; may he send faithful shepherds to his flock everywhere; and may the kingdom of our God speedily come, and all the ends of the earth see his salvation! Amen!

A CRITIQUE

ON THE

HON. AND REV. MR. PERCEVAL'S APOLOGY

FOR THE

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

On Saturday, Sept. 21, 1839, the following announce ment appeared in the Leeds Intelligencer :-" An Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession, with an Appendix on the English Orders, by the Honourable and Rev. A. P. Perceval, B. C. L., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. This work, as the preface states, has been written at the request of the vicar of Leeds, and with the assistance of several prelates and divines of the Church of England. It is a complete answer to a pamphlet lately published by a Mr. Powell."

The Leeds Intelligencer is, in church matters, under the influence of Dr. Hook and his party. The above statement, therefore, seems to demand that the author of the Essay on Apostolical Succession should give his readers an account of this answer to his work. The writer of the notice of Mr. Perceval's Apology evidently felt himself in an awkward predicament. A Dissenting teacher, a Mr. Powell, had published something on apostolical succession, a subject dear as life to every high Church priest. Of course Dr. Hook, the vicar of Leeds, a spiritual descendant of Pope Vitalian, Alexander III., Innocent III., Innocent IV., Nicholas III., &c., &c., knew his superiority too well to deign any notice of "a pamphlet, by a Mr. Powell." However, the public deigned to notice it; and about two thousand copies were sold in little more than a twelvemonth. Many periodicals pronounced a high opinion on the work. Churchmen are convinced by it;

and Dissenters feel confirmed in the superiority of their own ministry.

Dr. Hook is not unconscious of these things. He, therefore, particularly requests his friend the Honourable and Reverend A. P. Perceval, brother chaplain to the queen, to prepare an antidote. This is undertaken: several prelates and divines assist in the work, and it is dedicated to the archbishop of Canterbury. "A pamphlet by a Mr. Powell" is greatly honoured by all this. However, this Mr. Powell is such a strange sort of creature that he feels no gratitude when no favour is intended; and what he does not feel, he despises to affect. Yet certainly this complete answer" to his work shall be examined.

66

66

The Apology of Mr. Perceval presents one difficulty, which, I hope, few Dissenting productions exhibit. The difficulty is this; Mr. Perceval generally answers his opponents by assertions, and not by proofs of their mistakes. But this is probably one of the advantages possessed by gentlemen of the succession, that they have authority to be believed without proofs; and Dissenters have not. We have learned from a very old Dissenter from these gentlemen, to "prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good." Dr. Hook proclaimed that the spiritual descent of " every bishop, priest, and deacon, was evident to every one who chose to investigate it." Now what is so evident to every one, must be capable of easy demonstration: but Mr. Perceval, in answer to the objection in the Essay, that there is " no sufficient historic evidence of a perpetual succession of valid episcopal ordinations," says, " If nothing will satisfy men but actual demonstration," (sufficient historic evidence was the question,) "I yield at once," p. 79. This pamphlet has done something: the chosen champion of the succession scheme "yields at once" that there is no sufficient historic evidence to support it!

Still Mr. Perceval hugs the scheme, though he " yields at once," that it has no sufficient historic evidence to support it. He considers it to be "an article of this one faith, [of the Bible,] and to be the authority for that one baptism," of the Bible, p. 62: and justly concludes, that there is " consequence springing from these premises if established: in respect, namely, of the paramount and exclusive claim upon the obedience of ALL Christians within the British

a

diocesses which belongs to the BISHOPS of those diocesses," pp. 237, 238. And he has the courage to denounce the orders of all the Protestant churches of "Germany, Denmark, France, Scotland, England, Ireland, and North America," (the Episcopal Church excepted in the latter,) "pretended orders," and their power of ordination, a "fancied power of ordination," pp. 54, 45.

Just

It is very amusing, too, to learn, that if Dissenting teachers dispute this, and tell such gentlemen as Mr. Perceval, that, to pronounce such a sentence of excommunication against all these churches, without the clearest, strongest Scriptural proof, is semi-popish, bigoted, and intolerant,then, Mr. Perceval says, this is persecuting the Church of England. Hear him at p. 62: "It is," says he, "I believe chiefly, if not wholly, on account of the exclusiveness of the doctrine that we who maintain it are exposed to hatred and reviling; and if we may judge from the language of our revilers, shall have to endure persecution, if it shall be in their power to inflict it. If we would be content to teach episcopacy as one among many schemes equally true or equally doubtful, it should seem, from their latest writings, that we should not be disturbed; but because we teach it, as the Scriptures and the church have delivered it to us, exclusively, therefore the world hateth us. so, if the early Christians could have been contented to profess their religion, as one of the six hundred tolerated by heathen Rome, and had been liberal enough, according to the modern abuse of the term, to regard all religion as pretty much alike, they would have had no need to endure the cross, the stake, or the teeth of wild beasts: but because they taught their religion, as the Scriptures and the church had delivered it to them, exclusively, therefore the world hated them. While, therefore, the charge of exclusiveness is an argument in our favour against whom it is brought, seeing that we bear it in common with the primitive martyrs; it is an argument against those who bring it, seeing that they do so, in common with the very heathen." We have quoted the whole of this paragraph, for the purpose, among other things, of giving a specimen of Mr. Perceval's views, reasoning, and style. He is in a dreadful fright, it seems, lest "the world," the heathenish dissenters, should call the successionists to martyrdom! Good man!

« הקודםהמשך »