תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

exemplified in the consecration of St. Catherine's Church, London, by the notable archbishop of the reign of Charles I., which consecration mainly consisted in bowings, steppings, and jumpings back. wards and forwards, according to number and measure. These and all such things are included in and meant by Ritualism.

II. Christianity is the religion of Christ, or the religion of which Christ is the author. A Christian is a follower of Christ, one who manifests a likeness to Christ, it being only by resemblance to Christ that any person is evidenced to be a genuine Christian. Therefore true Christianity is that religion which is in accordance with the spirit, the example, and the practice of Jesus, and the more the religion is conformed hereto, the more true is the Christi. anity.

Now, where in the records which we have of the life, the worship, the devotions, the teaching, and the practices of Christ when He was on the earth, have we any event, circumstance, or command related in the most distant manner having an approach to Ritualism? When Christ was baptized, the baptism so far from being performed in a gorgeous building, was not performed within a building at all, but in a river, by an administrator dressed in a simple garment of camel's hair, and a girdle of leather. Ofttimes when Jesus preached it was sitting on the ground or in a ship, which, it must be owned, shows a disregard of all that is pompous, formal, ceremonial, or ritualistic, and His devotions were frequently attended to in the open air. The very least too that can be said of the teachings of Jesus, is that they in no way, or degree, favoured Ritualism. That worship and service which greatly consists in external performance, and attention to outward acts, the teachings of Jesus never favoured, while he inculcated the necessity of the worship of the heart, as may be seen by observing Matt. xv. 1-20; John iv. 24.

It must be admitted that the apostles were well acquainted with the mind of their Lord and Master ; that their religious practices were in accordance with His wiil; and that we shall not err in following their example in these things. Then state what was their practice? We find them holding their assemblies in houses or rooms, unaccompanied by any of that ecclesiastical upholstery which is now put into such prominence by Ritualists, and in bis letters to the Galatians and Colossians the Apostle Paul-writing, be it remembered, under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost-strikes at the observances of times and seasons, and the laying of great stress on, or paying undue attention to outward ordinances, as that which led their minds away from the substance of true religion. See Gal. iv. 9, 10; v. 6 ; vi. 15; Col. ii. 16, 17. The decision of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts xv., was of precisely the same purport.

True Christianity then, is a walking in the footsteps of Christ, it is the experience and practice of faith, lore, humility, yodly fear, meekness, self-denial, and uprightness, while the only worship which is acceptable to God is that of the heart, though it be offered

in the simplest manner and without the accompaniment of any outward adornings or formalities. To establish our assertion as to the nature of the worship which is acceptable to God, we need only refer to the words addressed by Christ to the Samaritan woman, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Bim in spirit, and in truth.”

We have now to consider the question, Is Ritualism consistent with, or unnecessary to the

advancement of true Christianity ? We shall first show that Ritualism is unnecessary to the advancement of true Christianity. That it is so, is manifest from the adrances made by Christianity in apostolic days, when the Gospel was preached by unlettered men, in a simple manner, and the worship of God was conducted without any of that multiplicity of ceremonies advocated by Ritualists, and without any of those accompaniments which are so fascinating to the senses.

But to show the antenable position of our opponents we will adduce the testimony of the founders and early members of that Church in which Ritualism is at the present time advancing with the most rapid steps. Macaulay, in his History, informs is that the English Reformers desired to go as far as their brethren on tho Continent; that they unanimously condemned as anti-Christia'ı numerous practices which Henry VIII. retained, and which Elizabeth approved ; that Hooper had the strongest aversion to opistona! vestments; that Ridley pulled down the altars of his diocese, i nd ordered the Eucharist to be administered in the middle of churches at tables which the Papists termed “oyster boards ; "that Jewel called the clerical garb “a stage dress, a fool's coat, a relique of the Amorites ;” that Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration; and that Parkhurst prayed that the Church of England might model herself on the Church of Zurich. The sentiments bere adduced were not those of persons whom the greatest Ritualists of the present day can term schismatics or separatists, but of members of and officials in their own Church, and show us that our English Reformers did not deem Ritualism to be either necessary to, or consistent with, the advancement of true Christianity.

At the time of the Hampton Court Conference, Lord Bacon published a pamphlet, of which Hallam thus writes, “ He excepts to several matters of ceremony; the cap and surplice, the ring in marriage, the use of organs, the form of absolution, lay-baptism, &c. To this expression of Bacon's sentiments, a thinker of the present day thus adverts, “ Let those who deem the Puritans narrow-minded bigots weigh that fact. Ther must have attached to the points on which they insisted a significance hard for us to conceive, or they could never have enlisted the sympathy of a mird 80 tapacious, discreet, clear-sighted, and vigilant as the mind of Bacon."

In the declaration of Charles II., to his subjects concerning ecclesiastical affairs, there occurs the following language,

“In the meantime, out of compassion for, and compliance towards those who would forbear the cross in baptisn, we are content that no man shall be compelled to use the same, or suffer for not doing it, and if the proper minister shall refuse to omit that ceremony of the cross, it shall be lawful for the parent, who would not have his child so baptized, to procure another minister to do it, who will do it according to his desire. No man sball be eompelled to bow at the name of Jesus, or suffer in any degree for not doing it.

“For the use of the surplice, we are contented that all men be left to their liberty to do as they shall think fit, without suffering in the least degree for wearing or not wearing it."

Thus Charles II. and his counsellors tacitly admitted that rites and ceremonies are not necessary to the advancement of Christianity. In the ranks, therefore, both of those members of the Church of England who were rigid, and of those who were lax in practice, we find testimonies to the needlessness of ceremonies for the promotion of Christianity.

And that Ritualism is unnecessary to the advancement of true Christianity is evident from the progress made by Christianity in the days of the Puritans, under Whitfield and his coadjutors, and since then in denominations who of all sections of the professing Church of Christ have the smallest number of ceremonies, and attach to them the smallest degree of importance.

That Ritualism is not consistent with the advancement of true Christianity is evident from its inconsistency with the nature of Christianity, as that is exemplified in the practice of Christ and His apostles-the standard by which we must test all that professes to be Christianity. Christ teaches us that God is a Spirit. He is not material. Therefore the worship which He requires is spiritual. Corporeal worship is suited to a corporeal being. Were the true God such, then bowings, genuflections, prostrations, risings, peculiar garments for worship, and changes of dress in it, with adornings of His temple would be suitable; but to the God who is a Spirit such things can give no pleasure ; and when they are employed in His worship, they are wholly inappropriate and out of place.

The whole of bodily worship that is rossible is, if it be nothing more, utterly unacceptable to the true God, and altogether unprofitable to the worshipper. God requires to be worshipped in spirit, that is, with the heart and feelings ; and in truth, that is, in sincerity and reality, not in appearance only.

The character of the place in which worship is conducted, or what there is present in or absent from the place, is wholly unessential. Worship is as acceptable in a room, a barn, or a hovel, as in a cathedral. The attitude of the worshipper is equally unimportant. God regards not whether the worship be paid in a sitting, standing, or kneeling posture, nor in what direction the face be turned ; neither is the dress of the worshipper a matter of the smallest moment, for God hath declared that He looketh not on the outward appearance, but on the heart. Whenever, and wherever the heart ascends to God, there is true worship, whatever else be absent. The ap 'stle Paul tells the Corinthians that he was sent to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, that is, lest men’s minds should be taken off the matter of preaching, and be taken up with the manner of preaching-lest the doctrine of a crucified Christ should be lost sight of from the attention being preeminently given to the eloquence of speech, and the accuracy and elegance of expression. So where Ritualism is put in the foreground, that which is esse itial and substantial is lost sight of, from the attention being supremely devoted to that which is adventitious; spiritual, heartfelt Worship is ignored, unconcernedness about offering such worship is naturally and necessarily fostered, the necessity of it is forgotten, and devotion sinks into a mere round of lifeless, empty formalities. A system that is thus opposed to true Christianity cannot be consistent with its advancement. All that such a system does or can do is to lead its adherents, as it progresses, to an increasing distance from true Christianity, till it merges in Roman Catholicism, or some similar scheme of mere outward, lifeless formalities, and is. therefore utterly antagonistic to true Christianity's advancement.

On this point we close with the words of a writer before quoted : “ Hooper, Jewel, Hampden, Cromwell, all the thorough-going Protestants of the time, all the practical thinkers who knew mankind, believed that retention of ceremonies would predispose the people to Romanism. And looking along the intervening centuries, listening to the unappealable verdict of time, do we find that those rugged practical men were in the wrong? To Hooker's challenge to show how deadly infection could arise to the Church of England from similitude, in matters of indifference, to the Church of Rome, history has spoken their answer. Reminding her children constantly of the anoient church, leaving them to decide whether her affinity is greater for Rome or for the Reformation, the Church of England has entailed opon them a trial to which many in every generation have fallen victims. A long procession of illustrious deserters from her communion, a procession in which glitter two crowns and many coronets, a procession in which have gone some of the noblest hearts and proudest intellects of Eng. land, a procession from which a constant arrow-flight of venomed taunts has reached her own bosom, testifies whether or not the Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries erred in pronouncing it dangerous for the Church of England to halt between the Romanists and the Retormers."

S. S.

Literature.

IS CARLYLE OR MACAULAY THE GREATER

WRITER?

MACAULAY.-III.

It is with no little pleasure that we embrace the opportunity of expressing our opinions regarding one whom we greatly admire, and whose works have been a source of delight and profiit to us in our leisure as well as in our student hours. That celebrated man is Thomas Babington Macaulay, who was gifted by his great talents to be the literary ornament of the century in which he lived, and whose name will receive from succeeding ages the respect and homage due to high personal excellence, virtue, and ability, from all enlightened and impartial minds. It is impossibie not to discourse at some length on one so eminent in so many respects ;--as an histo. rian, so profound and so graceful; as an essayist, so celebrated and 80 brilliant; as a poet, so racy and so pleasing; as an orator, so eloquent and so astute; as a statesman, so distinguished and admired: in short, on a man whose virtuous life and wonderful talents won for him the admiration of all and the enmity of none. It is against the ability of such a man, as a writer, that another great manCarlyle-is placed, in order that it may be shown to whom the pre-eminence rightly belongs. We admit that Carlyle is a man of great power, but we must at the same time confess that his powers are such as we cannot admire. We trust, however, that we shall be able to give reasons why we prefer the one to the other, and otherwise consider in an impartial manner the arguments adduced in this discussion.

It is our first duty to consider what constitutes a great writer," and our view on this point is totally different from that given by H. K. (p. 90). A great writer is one who knows the subject upon which be is writing in all its details ; can convey to the reader the views he entertains in the most easily understood manner-in clear, pointed, and comprehensive language; to express sentiments in language most appropriate to the subject, using, of course, the most suitable words in a distinct manner, so that he may be understood without trouble. The ideas must be logically linked, so as to give an unmistakable connection to the subject from beginning to end. He must have a vigorous, discriminative, and versatile mind -be, in fact, a thinker. H. K. measures Carlyle by the standard that Carlyle has himself given of what he conceives a great writer should be, quoting—“Men of letters are a perpetual priesthood

« הקודםהמשך »