David Thom – Why is Popery Progressing? 3rd Ed. (1866, orig. 1835)
WHY IS
Popery PROGRESSING?
BY
DAVID THOM, D.D. Ph.D.
LATE MINISTER OF BOLD STREET CHAPEL, LIVERPOOL.
THIRD EDITION.
LONDON :
H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET.
M.DCCC.LXVI.
[ii] “The Church of Rome is, at this day, in her root, as in her branches, an anti-christian and persecuting church.” — Synod of Aberdeen, 1835.
“If, indeed, the general body will not tolerate any such expression of private opinion — if it attempts to impose silence on the denouncer of errors, to crush him — if, in the true spirit of obdurate folly, it will ‘hear no reproofs,’ and casts out the troublesome member— then the whole blame of division rests with the body, not with the dissident individual. The church is the schismatic, when it has no ear, and no indulgence, for diversities of sentiment.” — SATURDAY EVENING, by the Author of “The Natural History of Enthusiasm.”
[iii] ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION.
The following valuable little work having been for some years “out of print,” it has been thought desirable, once again to put it in circulation.
Its gifted author clearly perceived what was the tendency, and what must be the inevitable result of the present procedure of almost all communities of professing Christians: what he more than thirty years ago beheld steadily advancing, has now come upon us as an overwhelming torrent, and who can say where its course will be stayed?
To some few it has been given to discern, in what Popery really consists, and that to endeavour to attach the multitude, by external discipline, splendid ceremonial, or sensuous attraction of any kind, rather than by internal conviction, is to act in the very spirit of it: they know also, that the adhesion of ever so large a number, united merely in externals, adds no one member to that Church, whose only bond of union is, faith in Christ Jesus their living Head.
To the members of the Church of Christ in Great Britain, the author dedicated his former editions. To the members of the Church of Christ in Great Britain and in Italy this third edition is now dedicated.
London, July 1866.
[v] ADVERTISEMENT TO SECOND EDITION.
At the request of some respected friends, and from a conviction of duty, I now send forth a second time to the world, a little brochure which fifteen years ago I published, and which for a good while has been out of print.
Remarkable, when, with a view to its reappearance in print, I have after the lapse of many years again perused my pamphlet, do I find the adaptation of its statements and appeals to existing institutions, passing events, and impending dangers to be. The “hue and cry” against Popery, and the formation of ”Protestant Associations,” in 1835, gave it birth. And how similar to the circumstances of that period, are these of the present! Only, evils then looming in the distance, and matters of dread, are now realized in fact. To prophecy I make no pretensions. All that is miraculous in God’s dealings with man, I believe to have ended and passed away at the period of the destruction of Jerusalem. But some knowledge and love of His blessed word, it hath pleased Him who is the Father of lights, in the course of His adorable providence, to impart to me. Guided by this, to the degree in which it had then entered into my mind, the following pages were written. And as no one teacheth like God, no wonder if observations made in the light of His word, and reflections which it suggested, should have conducted to a knowledge of bodies calling themselves Churches of Christ, and to a correctness of anticipation regarding the future, which mere worldly sagacity, judging on human principles, is incapable of attaining to. When this tract was first published, even Christian friends opposed me. I was told, that no such progress of Popery, as I was insisting on, had then taken place, or was probable. It was in vain for me to appeal to what was then going on at Oxford, and to the tendencies of Puseyism then in its incipient stages. It was in vain for me [vi] to urge many of the facts and reasonings of the pamphlet itself. Popery, I was told, never could make head in this country. Subsequent events have shewn which of us was in the right. The progress of Puseyism, the present state of the University of Oxford, the conversion of seventy clergymen of the Church of England to Popery, (to say nothing of the numerous laymen who have gone over with them,) the rapid increase and almost basilican splendour of Roman Catholic places of worship, the defiance of law and authority exhibited in the recent holding of the Council at Thurles, and, above all, the late insolent partition of England into Romish dioceses on the part of the Holy Father (?) are rather striking facts, when looked at in connexion with the production of a fallible creature, published in 1835.
If private friends disagreed with me, I had also to stand the opposition, and even ridicule, of public journals, by which my positions were controverted, and my conclusions denied. The Sun (London), the Liverpool Standard (in a leader of two columns), and the Liverpool Journal, were pleased to devote long articles to my confutation. Whether these periodicals will now acknowledge their error, remains to be seen. To the respectable and respected Editor of the Liverpool Courier, I have to return my best thanks, for the extreme fairness of treatment, indeed, to a certain degree, approbation of my sentiments, which I experienced at his hands.
Scarcely any change have I made in the text of the pamphlet. So few, indeed, are the alterations, that it appears now almost exactly in the state in which it was first brought under public notice. Twelve or fourteen words, substituted for others previously employed, but not one of them in the slightest degree affecting the sense, will, it is believed, express the whole amount of the variation. Some notes are added, which are distinguished from those appended to the former edition, by being enclosed in brackets.
Before throwing off this publication again, one additional remark is necessary. I do not now believe that the Church of Rome is the Babylonish harlot of the Book of Revelation. In adopting the view which I now repudiate, I was led astray by the number, influence, and agreement of Protestant com-[vii]mentators, as well as by the mass of facts which appears to establish it. The Romish Church exhibits the worst features of Anti-Christ in perfection, and has by her influence been directly the chief corrupter of Protestantism. Nevertheless, she is not that harlot, who is the mother of harlots. That “bad eminence” belongs to the Jewish Church. And those adulterous practices, and corrupt influences, with which Christianity has to do, are, at the least, coeval, in their commencement, with the destruction of Jerusalem, when, according to Revelation 12:9, throwing light on Psalm 82:6,7, (see John 10:33-36), the Jewish Church was cast down out of heaven, or her former state as the spouse of God, to earth, by being deprived of her miraculous character, position, and privileges, and reduced to the level of other human beings.1 Besides, the phrase Kings of the Earth, I am now satisfied, is an allegorical expression for believers of the truth. See 1 Peter 2:9, 1 John 5:4,5, Rev. 1:6 and 5:10. Also, Rev. 18:4. It is from my people, their adulterous connections with the fallen Jewish church, in spite of solemn and reiterated warnings given, that the various external Churches denominated Christian, and that all the corruptions and abuses of Christianity, have derived their origin. In the apostles’ days this state of things began, (2 Corinth. 11:1-3, 1 John 4:3; see also the Epistle to the Galatians, &c.); and after the apostles had finished their course, it was consummated. (Acts 20:28-30, 2 Thess. 2:3-11.) On such grounds, which I state as briefly as possible, is the modification of my views, just alluded to, founded. To me, now, the Church of Rome is the eldest daughter of the Jewish Church or Babylonish harlot, bears the most marked resemblance to her degraded parent, and, from her greater age and experience, has had the principal [viii] share in corrupting her younger sisters. Notwithstanding this, I see no reason to disturb the text of the pamphlet. Substituting sister for mother, and remembering that the influences of Judaism upon Protestants are exercised almost exclusively through Popish channels, every charge, every statement, every conclusion remains as before. By Rome her younger sisters have been nurtured; from her directly they have sucked in the poison of atheism and infidelity. All fleshy churches taken together constitute the second beast (Rev. 18:11-18);2 and of these, if the filthy mother of harlots be the head, yet the Church of Rome is the largest, the most active, and the most influential.
1 Rev. 12:7-9, is a sort of abridgement of the history of the struggle between Judaism and Christianity, an account of the leading events of which occupies the Acts of the Apostles. It ended with Jerusalem’s destruction. Michael and his angels are Christ and his apostles; while the devil, (or, accuser of the brethren,) is Moses, (standing as the representative of the legal system, see John 5:45, compared with 1:17.) who, along with his angels, as the Jewish authorities and people, resists the spread of the gospel. Judaism, in the persons of the devil and his angels, is cast out of heaven into the earth (Rev. 12:9, with Psalm 82:7): heaven thenceforward being the place of that true church, of which Abraham’s descendants constituted merely the type. Rom. 2:28,29.
2 This may be seen in “The Number and Names of the Apocalyptic Beasts,” published by H. K. Lewis. 1848.
The Lord bless the republication of this little tract, to be a means of awakening his own people to a sense of their folly, as well as danger, in continuing to act as they do; and in drawing their attention to the nature, constitution, and privileges of that church, which is not earthly and external, like the Jewish one, but heavenly and internal — the substance and antitype of what long since, as shadowy, passed away. (Rev. 14:1-4.)
[9] WHY IS Popery PROGRESSING?
At a time when “the pulpit, drum ecclesiastic,” is being “beat” throughout the land, and the various sects and denominations of Protestants are called on by their respective leaders to place themselves in battle array against the threatening phalanx of the church of Rome, one, who for many years past has kept himself aloof from the turmoils of religious strife, and who, as a mere spectator of the game of words which theologians are engaged in playing, is perhaps thereby better qualified to judge of its issue than the parties themselves, would desire to throw his mite into the treasury of truth, in the shape of a few thoughts respecting the existing state of things.
It is impossible for any well-informed and discerning person not to be aware, and for any candid person not to admit, that for the last twenty or thirty years Popery has been advancing in this country with gigantic strides. The amazing number of chapels erected by the professors of the Roman Catholic faith, and the vast increase of their body which has taken place, within the period just mentioned, put the fact beyond the possibility of a doubt. In vain shall we “lay the flattering unction to our souls” and say, that this is to be accounted for chiefly on the ground of the great immigration of the lower classes of the Irish, and the stedfast adherence of them and their descendants to the religion of their forefathers. Statistical enquiries, if duly prosecuted, would I am convinced shew, that, if something is to be allowed for the influx of our Irish Roman Catholic brethren, the grand cause of the result in question must be sought for in circumstances connected with our native population itself.3
3[In “Oxford Tracts,” “Oxford Influence,” London “Margaret Chapel” practises, inculcation of Baptismal regeneration, Pusey, Hooke, and Newman discourses, recommendation of Roman Catholic writings, &c.]
Besides the evil is far from having yet attained its height. Every day adds to its intensity and malignity. It seems to “grow by what it feeds on.” Vires acquirit eundo. As the natural consequence of this, Roman Catholic resources are evidently becoming more and more consolidated. The prelates and clergy of that communion are assuming a bolder [10] tone. Its more zealous members are, in not obscure whispers, intimating their ulterior views and intentions. Smarting under the sense of injuries but too recently inflicted, and still scarcely removed, papists in general are panting for an opportunity of revenge. From the efforts of a body of men so ardent, so compact, so well disciplined, so eager to repossess themselves of the power and influence of which they consider their predecessors to have been unjustly deprived, what have we not to dread? If under adverse circumstances the adherents of the church of Rome have effected so much, now, that wind and tide are in their favour, is it unreasonable to anticipate a result still more agreeable to their most sanguine wishes?
I am then an alarmist; and am ready to concur with the most zealous of my Protestant brethren in sounding the trumpet throughout Zion, and calling attention to the black and threatening cloud which at present overhangs the religious horizon of Great Britain.
But for the wide and rapidly increasing spread of Popery, are Protestants themselves in no respect whatever to blame?
Three hundred years have elapsed since the period of the Reformation; during that long interval scarcely a single kingdom or state of any consequence has embraced the Protestant cause; nay, attachment to Protestantism is, in one of the most important kingdoms of Europe, confessedly on the decline: — on what principle are these extraordinary facts to be accounted for, except on that of something being vitally and essentially wrong in the constitution and practice of the Reformed churches themselves?
I am afraid that there is no way of answering these questions truly, but by admitting the correctness of the charge which they insinuate.
Even a priori we might have anticipated the mixture of much that is Popish, and consequently debasing, in Protestantism. The early reformers had been nursed on the bosom, and cradled in the lap, of the church of Rome. It was with no small difficulty, and after many internal struggles, that they came to the resolution of disarming their spiritual parent, and separating themselves from her communion. They tore themselves reluctantly from her embrace. Under such circumstances what was to have been expected? That these great men, for great men they unquestionably were, should have freed themselves entirely from early prejudices and long cherished attachments? That every vestige of error should all at once have passed away, and that divine truth, in all the fulness of its meridian splendour, and without the usual prelude of twilight or dawn, should have burst into and illuminated their minds? Certainly not. Such a result would [11] have contradicted all that we gather from the lessons of experience. If a strong reluctance to expose in all its hideousness and deformity the church from which they sprang, if a dread lest in the prosecution of their researches they should be carried too far, found a place in the breasts of the first reformers — was not this in their case extremely natural? And, from such feelings, what but a dreadful alloy of Protestant doctrine and Protestant practice, could by any possibility follow?
There is another reason why, even independently of fact, we might have anticipated that the Reformation would stop short, far short indeed, of the ne plus ultra of perfection. It had to be accommodated to the tastes of mere men of the world. A profligate monarch, a rapacious nobility, an ignorant and bigotted populace, required to be conciliated. What a scope for the exercise of worldly policy! Were men imperfectly enlightened and exposed to the influence of the most powerful human temptations, likely to come off unscathed from such a tremendous ordeal? Was there no probability of their sacrificing, or at all events compromising their Christian integrity? Alas! who that is acquainted with the nature of man, would venture to maintain even the possibility of thorough uprightness under such circumstances being preserved. Yes; one author, and he too of no undistinguished name, has in behalf of a favorite sect, hazarded the assertion. — “Martin,” says he, “where he observed the embroidery to be worked so close as not to be got away without damaging the cloth — concluded the wisest course was to let it remain, resolving in no case whatsoever that the substance of the stuff should suffer injury.”4 If Martin retained any of the embroidery wrought on his father’s coat, or dropping the metaphor, if the early reformers introduced into their respective systems any of the corruptions of the church of Rome, — and Swift in the passage quoted not only admits, but glories in their having done so, — it is in vain to adduce as an apology, that love to the word of God alone suggested the adulteration. In motives of worldly policy, in deference to human authority, reflective and enlightened minds will find a much more probable explanation of their conduct.
4 Tale of a Tub, section vi.
But why insist on mere probabilities? Is not the history of the procedure of the reforming divines, in fact the history of the perpetration of abuses and corruptions against which they themselves had loudly and perseveringly exclaimed?
First: — They had often deplored and protested against the employment of the secular arm by the church of Rome, for the persecution of Huss, and Jerome, and the other kindred [12] spirits who preceded them in the path of scriptural discovery. And how, when they themselves had acquired the ascendancy, did they act? Was the support of the arm of flesh unhesitatingly rejected, and the might of the arm of the Lord alone confided in? Quite the reverse. The very first step taken in every country where Protestantism prevailed, was to gain over and enlist on its side the civil authorities. The reformers rushed at once into the adulterous embrace of the kings of the earth. Thus did one worldly establishment of Christianity supersede another. Thus was the Romish error of substituting the power of man for the power of God perpetuated among Protestants.
Secondly: — The church of Rome, like the Jews of old, had for a long time previous to the æra of the Reformation rendered the word of God void by their traditions. The scriptures, to use Luther’s coarse but expressive simile, had lain for centuries buried under “the dunghill of the Romish decretals.”5 How striking the lesson taught by this fact, of the disposition of man to substitute his own views and wisdom for the views and wisdom of God! And did the early reformers profit by it? Did they decline having anything to do with creeds of man’s devising, and resolve to content themselves with the word of God alone? Oh no! It was one of the first concerns of the leading ecclesiastics in every Protestant country to concoct articles of religion, or draw up confessions of faith. Without the security which such formularies afforded, the church of Christ, it was imagined, must have fallen an easy prey to superstition or heresy. The wisdom of God had thus thrown up around it, by way of bulwark or protection, the wisdom of man!
5 See Luther’s Works, vol. ii. fol. 307. edition 1600.
Thirdly: — Holiness is an essential attribute of the Supreme Being. It denotes the entire separation or distinction of the divine nature from every other. His holiness God sees meet to impart, by means of the manifestation of the truth, to all His chosen ones; Heb. 12:10; thereby separating or distinguishing them from the rest of the world, and setting them apart as a special priesthood to Himself. (John 17:17.) — Thenceforward they are qualified and enabled to present spiritual sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, which is their reasonable service. (Rom. 12:1; Heb. 13:15,16.) The church of Rome, ignorant of the divine holiness and in marked contempt of the Lord’s priesthood, educated mere natural men in schools, and colleges, to whom, when it conceived them to be sufficiently acquainted with human science and to have made a sufficient progress in human learning, it imparted a holiness of its own, pretending thereby to invest them with [13] the office of the Christian priesthood. “But the reformers,” it will be said, “having become acquainted with the nature of true holiness, as consisting in the possession of the divine principle of faith, were eager to restore to all the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty those spiritual functions which of right belong to them.” If so, what meaneth this bleating in mine ears? If so, whence the existence in England, Scotland, and the other countries called Reformed, of bodies of men, whether priests, clergy, or ministers, who, after having been trained in human academies and crammed with human learning, are thereby deemed fit to communicate divine instruction, and are set apart by man to an office to which none can be ordained except by God? (Heb. 5:4.) If so, whence the attempt on the part of Protestants to accomplish by means of human wisdom, and earthly revenues, and secular influence, what God alone can and does accomplish by means of the wisdom which cometh down from above, by the rich outpouring of His Holy Spirit, and by the carrying home of the truth to the conscience with almighty power? Alas! alas! these questions can be answered only in one way. The reformers having been nearly as ignorant as their Roman Catholic predecessors of the nature of true holiness, as that is evinced in the separation by God to Himself of New Testament believers, the only real spiritual priesthood, were induced to concur with those who had gone before them, in setting up the holiness of man in opposition to the holiness of God.
At this point a suspicion begins to cross the minds of some of my readers.
“You are bringing under our notice topics perfectly new to us. The idea of man’s power, man’s wisdom, and man’s holiness having been transferred into their respective systems by the early reformers from the church of Rome, and this too to the necessary exclusion of the corresponding divine attributes, never previously occurred to our minds. But there is a circumstance connected with this which we cannot now help thinking of. We have frequently heard our clergy from their pulpits represent the church of Rome as the great whore which sitteth upon many waters; and we have been frequently cautioned by them against her spiritual harlotry. But there is a part of the description of this monster of abominations upon which our religious instructors either have not touched at all, or which they have passed over very slightly. If it be the church of Rome who is styled the great harlot, she is also described as being the mother of harlots. Rev. 17:5. Now where are we to look for her offspring? Can it be that the various Reformed churches, established and dissenting, have claims to that honourable extract? They certainly sprang from her bosom; you have shewn us that they bear [14] some of her most marked and disgusting lineaments; and a suspicion — a suspicion we would much rather suppress than encourage — obtrudes itself upon our minds, that after all there may be something essentially wrong with certain much-loved and time-honoured institutions. — And yet it is right we should know the worst. Answer us, and answer us frankly: — Do you consider the church of Rome to be the harlot with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, who holds a cup of mingled abomination in her hand, and who is drunk with the blood of the saints? — and, are those Protestant churches which we have so long been accustomed to venerate neither more nor less than her progeny, inheriting the spirit, and treading in the footsteps of their filthy mother?”
I answer, with the desired frankness, they are. The God of prophecy saw, even in the apostles’ days, a spirit at work by which, in due time, a system of delusion and desolation was to be concocted, such as previously the world had never witnessed; and the same God also saw, that that system would engender a spawn of corresponding systems, agreeing not more in their origin than in their nature, with their common parent. In one striking prophetic picture, the mother and her brood have been delineated. — It is true, that the grosser, the more bloated and distorted, features of the mother, have hitherto chiefly arrested attention. Besides, ignorance, self-interest, and a variety of similar causes, have concurred in inducing the pastors of the Reformed to keep the eyes of their votaries directed to that quarter alone. In quashing enquiry nearer home, it must be confessed they have hitherto succeeded marvellously. But the reign of all delusion is necessarily temporary. The increasing light of scripture is now rendering concealment no longer possible. The deformity of the parent is beginning to be seen reflected in the deformities of the children. And when at last the kings of the earth, who so long have upheld the whore, come to hate her, and make her desolate and naked, and to eat her flesh, and burn her with fire, her offspring may be well assured that the period of their destruction cannot be far off. Members of the church of God themselves, as the kings of the earth, will cast off ultimately the old harlot and her offspring. Not, however, until possessed of far more heavenly light and love than the great majority of them are at present. They are still too much disposed to give their power — that power which is heavenly and divine — to the beast.
Indignant at what they conceive to be a false and unjustifiable representation of matters, a class of my readers, different from the former, are here ready to exclaim: — “If the Protestant churches be chargeable with spiritual fornication as well as the church of Rome, how is it that God saw meet so [15] eminently to bless the labours of the first reformers as we know Him to have done? And if blessed once, have we not the most abundant reason to anticipate a continuance of the divine blessing to Protestant communities still?”
With the same frankness with which I answered formerly, I answer the questions now proposed.
I admit that God was pleased in a most signal way to bless the exertions of his servants at the period of the Reformation, and thereby to countenance the churches to which these exertions gave birth. But I deny that, from the fact of God having blessed the Protestant churches three hundred years since, they have any right to count on the extension of the divine blessing to them now. Both my admission and my denial rest on ground the most substantial.
The Reformed churches stood indebted for the favour originally shewn to them, in no small degree, to the divine forbearance, loving kindness, and tender mercy. In themselves they were dreadfully corrupt communities, and carried about with them from their very origin the seeds of their own ultimate dissolution. But God is no hard task-master. He knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are but dust; and, therefore, as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them fear Him. He saw the great remaining ignorance of the early reformers — the dangers to which they were exposed — the difficulties by which they were surrounded. He was able to appreciate, and He did appreciate, the temptations which they had to encounter. Like a kind and indulgent parent, therefore, he made every allowance for their infirmities. Strange, indeed, would it have been, if that God who had borne with the perverseness, rebellions, and multiplied provocations of the children of Israel, in the early period of their history; — if that God who, when manifest in flesh, had endured patiently, not only the contradiction of sinners against himself, but the unbelief and almost incredible dullness of understanding of his immediate disciples; — nay, what is still more to the point, if that God who had borne with the church of Rome herself during the first thousand years of her existence, had not exhibited a similar forbearance towards the first reformers, and the churches which they established. In God’s dealings with the Protestant churches at the period of the Reformation then, we recognize one most striking proof of the truth of His declaration, that He is long suffering, and slow to anger.
Still farther: the conduct of the early reformers was such as in many respects to justify, nay call for the most decided marks of the divine approbation. If the leaven of ambition and intolerance in no ordinary degree tainted their minds — and what candid and well informed Protestant will deny that [16] it did so? — along with it there existed, and were displayed many shining, glorious, Christian-like qualities. Trained in the school of Rome, they have brought away with them from it but too many of its evils; but trained likewise in the school of Christ, they had caught, and they manifested a better spirit. They were not sordid men. We do not read of them grasping at golden prebends and highly salaried bishoprics — devoting their lives to the acquisition of wealth — and leaving their families in the possession of princely incomes. No! The Luthers, the Calvins, the Cranmers, the Coverdales, the Knoxes of the Reformation lived and died poor. With all their faults, they kept higher objects in view than the mere acquisition of earthly dignities or pelf. Hence their laborious personal exertions —their voluminous writings — their self-denial — the comparative purity of their lives — their firm, manly, and on the whole uncompromising characters. Oh, they were glorious men. — The feastings of the noble and wealthy they despised; for they aimed at providing feasts of a richer kind for us their descendants. Could such men fail of commanding and obtaining the divine blessing?
But we can assign a still stronger reason than either of the foregoing, for the divine approbation which the early reformers enjoyed. Through their exertions positive benefits of incalculable value were conferred on the Christian church. They translated the scriptures; they caused the worship of God to be performed in the vernacular tongue; they poured contempt on images: they overturned conventual institutions; they abolished the celibacy of the clergy; they set aside auricular confession; they brought prominently out to view the doctrine of salvation, by the cross of Christ alone; they connected justification with faith, to the exclusion of the deeds of the law; and they afforded a glimpse of that all-important privilege of the people of God, the assurance of faith, the only source of true and scriptural sanctification. The Reformation was thus a mighty step in advance of the previously existing state of things. From those by whom a change so conducive to the welfare of the human race had been effected, could the divine blessing be withheld? True, Protestant institutions were after all extremely defective: they contained a sad admixture of the Popish leaven; and therefore they were not blessed unreservedly. The same divine power to which the Reformation owed its origin was pleased to check it, when man continued keeping his unhallowed hand on the ark of the sanctuary. But if Protestantism was debased by much that was man’s, it also contained much that was God’s. It brought to light views of the divine character over which Popery has for ages succeeded in drawing a veil. It relieved the human mind from the most oppressive and vexatious burdens; it placed [17] the church of Christ in more advantageous circumstances than formerly; it put into the hands of individuals a mighty lever by which remaining difficulties, however numerous and formidable, were in process of time to be overcome. If not perfect the Reformation was thus emphatically spes melioris ævi. God had showered down favours upon men in far inferior stages of spiritual progress; He had not altogether withheld His benediction even from Popery itself; and could He, then, fail to testify His approbation of labours and institutions which, with all their defects, were productive of consequences so much more valuable and important as those of the first reformers were?
In vain, however, will Protestant churches venture to argue from the divine forbearance and favour shewn to the reformers three hundred years ago, to the continuance of a similar favour to themselves now.
Sadly ignorant of scripture, and consequently of themselves, must Protestants be, if they have hitherto failed to discover, that guilt is capable of being contracted by communities as well as by individuals; and that the long suffering of God is intended to lead the one, no less than the other, to repentance. Three centuries constitute no small portion of this world’s existence. During the whole of that long æra, how have the Reformed churches been employed? Have their members been constant examples of self-denial? Have their so-called priesthood and prelates been resisting successfully the temptations of filthy lucre, and the allurements of worldly ambition? Have Protestant states been contented to war only with those weapons which are not carnal, but spiritual, — and therefore mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds? Has the truth as it is in Jesus alone been loved? Have the scriptures been ransacked continually for new discoveries of the mind and will of their divine author? Has there been no persecution among Protestants, of individuals for preferring what God himself hath spoken, to creeds and confessions, articles and catechisms, and other formularies of man’s devising? Have love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, those fruits of the Spirit against which there is no law, been brought forth by Protestants, I do not say exclusively but to such an extent as to distinguish them materially from the members of the Romish communion? To the consciences of Protestants I appeal. Let them deny that, as individuals and as communities, they have contracted guilt, great guilt, if they dare.
“But the Protestants of a former, are not the Protestants of the present, day.” Granted. They are not. And if the latter shall be found to have repented of the deeds of their forefathers, not only am I willing to throw all these deeds into [18] oblivion, but am satisfied, upon the ordinary principles of the divine procedure, that they cannot fail of ensuring to themselves the divine favour and blessing. But wherein is their repentance visible? Consists it in Protestants adhering to the worst parts of the Reformation; and that, without being able to plead the apology for doing so, which the early reformers for introducing them could? Consists it in their still outraging the power, and the wisdom, and the holiness of God, by clinging to human power for support — by expecting from human wisdom, spiritual instruction — and by ascribing to man’s holiness a power of producing fruits, which scripture declares can only spring from the holiness of the truth? Consists it in exhibiting the same malice and uncharitableness — the same worldly mindedness — the same attachment to secular pomp and dignities — the same longing after ecclesiastical revenues — the same disposition to usurp pre-eminence over the member of Christ’s lowly family — which distinguished the Protestants of former ages? If this be repentance, then unquestionably Protestant communities may rely on the continuance to them of the divine blessing. But if to persevere in committing the very evils which we condemn in others, be always a fearful aggravation of our own guilt, what have the Reformed churches, homologating by their conduct the deeds of their forefathers, to expect, but that, when the cup of their own and their predecessors’ iniquities is full, they shall be forced to drink it to the very dregs?
To come still closer to the point. It is astonishing that any man of sane mind, with experience not to say scripture for his guide, should represent the indulgence shewn to infancy, as a reason for the same indulgence being extended to mature age. And yet, this is the very argument which I am now engaged in combating. “God was pleased to tolerate the faults of the Reformed churches, when struggling into existence; therefore, they are entitled to the same toleration, now that they have attained to the ripe manhood of three hundred years.” Admirable logic! And this, too, in the teeth of the instructive and admonitory lesson furnished by the Jewish history! God bore long and patiently with the Jews, during the earlier period of their national existence. He no doubt chastened them often, and that, too, severely; but whenever they confessed their sins, and turned to Him, He again renewed to them the tokens of His love. But at last the fulness of time arrived; their dispensation attained to its maturity; and when, instead of abandoning, they were found clinging to the errors, and perpetrating the crimes of their ancestors, swift and irremediable destruction came upon them to the uttermost. And have Protestant churches, which can only boast of a human origin, more reason to count on the [19] divine forbearance than God’s own favourite people had? It is true, they were graciously borne with at the period of their commencement. Their faults have since been frequently overlooked. But is the long suffering patience of God always to be trifled with? No man will be foolhardy enough to answer the question in the affirmative. Faults which may be tolerated in infancy, are proper grounds of punishment in mature age, Protestants themselves being judges. Time shall be, and time is, have already in language the most intelligible been proclaimed in the ears of the Reformed communities; and if, notwithstanding, the evils of their infancy, so far from being redressed, are clung to and and persevered in, time has been will ere long, in a voice of thunder, and attended with consequences the most appalling, come forth from the throne of the Eternal.
How little, alas! do professors of religion among Protestants seem to have attended to, or at all events to have profited by the plainest and most instructive warnings recorded in scripture. The Jews, by neglecting the divine injunction to destroy the Canaanites, or at least to expel them thoroughly from the promised land, found them afterwards grievous thorns in their sides. The barren fig tree, which for three years had encumbered the ground, was permitted for a year longer to occupy its place; but if, at the expiry of the latter period, it still continued unfruitful, its sentence was to be cut down and destroyed. Can Protestant churches, in such interesting facts and parables as these, read no lesson addressed to themselves? The early reformers were induced from one cause or another, to spare some of the most noxious parts of the Popish system; under the influence of the poison thus unfortunately introduced into it, Protestantism has ever since languished; and, therefore, however vigorous their efforts, and fruitful their branches, at a former period of their history, Protestant establishments and their numerous off-shoots have for many years been comparatively speaking unproductive; — indeed, have done little more than cumber the ground. Need I formally draw the conclusion to which such premises conduct us?
Are my readers now prepared for the naked and undisguised statement, that the principal causes of the recent progress of Popery, and the chief reasons which we have to dread its ever again regaining the ascendancy, are to be sought for and found in Protestantism itself?
Unquestionably, as admitted at the outset of this pamphlet, to the exertions of the Roman Catholics themselves, stimulated by a sense of former wrongs, and eager to re-possess themselves of their former influence, the recent extension of the Popish cause is, humanly speaking, in no small measure to be attributed. The adherents of the church of Rome have not been [20] idle. But all the exertions of Romanists, had they not been fearfully aided and abetted by Protestants themselves — had there not been a traitor spirit in the camp of the Reformed — would have been of little or no avail.6
6 [This was written in 1835. Hear how Lord John Russell, writing to the Bishop of Durham, expresses himself in November, 1850. “There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than any aggressions of a foreign sovereign. Clergymen of our own church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the Queen’s supremacy, have been the most forward in leading their flocks, ‘step by step to the very verge of the precipice.’ The honour paid to saints, the claim of infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the administration of penance and absolution — all these things are pointed out by clergymen of the church of England as worthy of adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the clergy of his diocese. What, then, is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy sons of the church of England herself.”]
Of this the Romish Hierarchy has for many years past been thoroughly aware. Hence a corresponding change of policy on its part. The Emperor Charles V., the other Popish princes, and the Popish prelates of his day, in attempting to overbear the Reformation by violence, committed a fatal mistake. They attacked passions, they roused feelings, which it is always dangerous to excite. Their successors have profited by their experience. The Benedicts, the Clements, the Pius’, the Gregories of modern times, understand matters better. Perceiving in Protestantism itself their own best ally, they deem it expedient to let it alone. They see that, as at present constituted and administered, the Reformed communities are effectually answering their purposes. “Let things remain as they are,” is now, therefore, their motto: for sanguine are the hopes cherished by the heads of the church of Rome, that in the event of matters continuing much longer on their present footing, the ultimate re-establishment of papal authority cannot by any possibility be averted.7
7 [So I wrote in 1835. Subsequent events, especially the treacherous conduct of certain Church of England clergymen, so pointedly alluded to by Lord J. Russell, has recently emboldened the Romish authorities to adopt a different course. The Papal Bull dividing England into bishoprics is a marked indication of this. I have an impression that Rome would have been more likely to succeed had she persevered a little longer in her previous policy. “The pear” was fast ripening, but was not yet “quite ripe.”]
“What!” exclaim some of my more zealous readers “must we sit tamely by, and without entering our solemn protest against such language, hear Protestants charged with being the allies and confederates of the church of Rome? With promoting the views of a body, whose maxims and practises they utterly loathe and detest? This is rather too much to be borne patiently. Mistakes the Reformed may have committed; some of their institutions may be susceptible of amelioration; but [21] a charge of directly encouraging the growth and influence of Popery, is one of the last to which any candid and sensible individual would have considered them obnoxious.”
Sorry am I to say, whatever may be the feelings of my Protestant friends on the subject, that the charge adduced is capable of being substantiated in every particular. “Mistakes,” call they the deliberate adoption of some of the worst features of the Popish system! “Institutions capable of amelioration” account they establishments which, as radically opposed to God’s word, are fit only to be destroyed! Well be it so. Let it be, that a preference of human power, human wisdom, and human holiness, to the power, the wisdom, and the holiness of God was, on the part of the early reformers, but a venial mistake. Let it be, that in treating as Christians, by administering to them divine ordinances, all the inhabitants of a district or nation indiscriminately, and this too, in opposition to their own recorded declaration, that the visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men8 only, there was no particular harm done. I say, let it be granted, argumenti causa, that there was nothing materially wrong in all this. Yet even then, taking them up on their own principles, Protestant established churches may be convicted of being, and must submit to be ranked among, the most active abettors and promoters of the Popish cause.
8 See Nineteenth Article of the Church of England.
To the parish clergy is entrusted what is technically denominated the cure of souls. The persons committed to their charge they undertake to instruct — over them they engage to watch. Now, how among Protestants have these duties been discharged? Faithfully, zealously, assiduously? Let one of the ablest and most candid men of his time, a distinguished prelate of the church of England, answer these questions in regard to the clergy of that church: — “I say it with great regret, I have observed the clergy in all places through which I have travelled, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Dissenters, but of them all, our clergy is much the most remiss in their labours in private, and the least severe in their lives,”9 To speak out still more plainly than Burnet has done: the beneficed clergy of the church of England, so far from looking after their flocks at all, have generally entrusted them to the charge of curates; — and the curates, having been generally occupied in eking out their scanty incomes by devoting themselves to teaching and other secular pursuits, have seldom had time or inclination to make up for the deficiencies of their superiors. What could follow from a state of things like this? Neglected, uninstructed, left to the unrestrained growth of [22] their own vile passions and grovelling desires, is it surprising if the nominally Protestant community of England should, in so many instances, have fallen an easy prey to the insidious arts and officious attentions of Popish missionaries? Why, it is obvious, that, by leaving them thus ignorant, their professed spiritual instructors delivered them over, bound neck and heels, to the first religious sect or body of men who might deem it worth their while to look after them.10 Had Roman Catholics reason to quarrel with Protestants for conduct like this?
9 Burnet’s ”History of His Own Times,” vol. ii. page 384.
10 [Exemplified in the almost total neglect of Wales, on the part of the English establishment, and the consequent triumphs of Whitfieldian Methodism in that principality. Exemplified in a similar neglect of England itself, and the rise and spread of Wesleyan Methodism in it.]
And when instruction was communicated by the Reformed divines, from the pulpit or in private, was it of such a nature as to be useful and edifying? Were Protestants painfully and thoroughly instructed in the points of difference subsisting between the Reformed churches and the church of Rome? Or if, owing to a dislike of controversy, such topics were abstained from, at all events were the leading doctrines of the gospel constantly, plainly, and scripturally obtruded on their notice? Were the cross of Christ, the only foundation of the sinner’s hope, — the righteousness of Christ, as that alone in which the creature stands perfect and accepted before God, — and the love of Christ, as the only principle from which true and spiritual obedience can flow, — the themes on which Protestant preachers were wont to dwell? Alas! for the truth must be told, the favorite topics of the Reformed clergy were any but those which God had promised to bless to the enlightening and salvation of mankind. Cold, dry, insipid discourses on stale topics of morality; or homilies composed in a style which it was scarcely possible for the illiterate to comprehend, constituted the ordinary staple of Protestant pulpit orations. And when the clergy did condescend to treat more particularly of doctrinal subjects, the lessons inculcated by them were much more commonly drawn from the schools of Pelagus and Arminius, than from that of Christ. Could anything have been more gratifying to Roman Catholics, could anything have more effectually promoted their purposes, than this? How must they have gloated over a state of things which promised, at no distant period, a welcome reception from nominal Protestants to sentiments, the same as those they were continually listening to, uttered by the lips of a disciple of Molina! So low was the state of evangelical knowledge among the people of England, in the reign of George I., and at the commencement of that of George II., that exertions on the part of Roman Catholics then, similar to [23] those which of late years they have made, might have deluged the kingdom with Popery: and although, in the good providence of God, they were not permitted to avail themselves at the time of the opportunity thus afforded them, the state into which England was then brought by her Protestant guides, has been one of the grand causes of the success of papists in more modern times.
To the other ways in which Protestant churches have actively contributed to the increase and spread of Popery, must be added the fondness of their clergy for rites and ceremonies, and the pains taken by them to enforce attention to these on the minds of their flocks. The essence of the Roman Catholic system is the substitution of external forms for internal principles. Against every tendency to this, it is the business of the teachers of a purer faith to put on their guard all those over whom they possess any influence. But how, in reality, have they acted? Why, as if their express intention had been to prepare Protestant countries for the quiet resumption, at some future period, of the Romish yoke. From the æra of the Reformation downwards, a regard to rites and ceremonies of mere human origin has been urged on Protestants with a zeal and an assiduity which would have graced a better cause. While the grand and distinguishing doctrines of the gospel have been almost entirely neglected — while positive breaches of morality have been cautioned against in language the driest and most unimpassioned — Protestant preachers have waxed hot, and Protestant authorities have been found to act with more than their wonted vigour, when some paltry form or ceremony appointed by the church has been called in question. Men constitutionally, or by the nature of their creed,
“Cold on other themes, are warm on this.”11
11 [What a curious illustration these remarks have received in the interval between their former and their present publication, in the Gorham case, and in the controversy to which it has given birth. Baptism, or rather creature sprinkling, everything, the work of the Creator, nothing.]
How zealously do Reformed pastors, otherwise sufficiently careless and lukewarm, take care to inculcate on Hodge the sprinkling of his children, the bringing of them when of proper age to be confirmed, the partaking of the sacrament, the receiving of ghostly admonition and priestly absolution when on his death-bed, and the being consigned to the tomb with the stated repetition of a dull ceremonial! How zealously do Protestant authorities insist on dresses, and genuflexions, and crossings, and other mummeries, which three centuries since disgusted the sober-minded puritans, and which still remain to astound the admirers of scriptural sim-[24]plicity! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon: — lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!— And yet, why affect concealment? Our Popish adversaries are well aware of all this. Although satisfied, with the pedant monarch, that the English liturgy is an “evil said mass,” and ready to maintain that all Protestant forms want the vivifying efficacy which mother church alone can impart, they nevertheless see with pleasure the importance attached to rites and ceremonies by Protestant establishments, and on this circumstance build their chief hopes of ultimate triumph. Well do they know that no religion of forms can in point of splendour and attractiveness vie with theirs; and therefore where the observation of an inferior ceremonial is enforced, can they be far wrong in supposing, that more than the first step has been taken towards the adoption, at some more convenient season, of the entire Romish ritual?12
12 [To the above paragraph, written in 1835, I would particularly invite attention. Have the facts above glanced at had no connection with intervening events? and can any church, adopting the practices above censured, especially if under the guidance and influence of zealous formality, ever be anything else than a seminary for semi-Popery, and subservient to the introduction of Popery itself in its full-blown state?]
And now, will the most prejudiced of my readers venture to deny, that negligence, false doctrine and an overweening attachment to rites and ceremonies, if proved against Protestant establishments, render them most powerful and efficient auxiliaries of the church of Rome?13
13 Charges similar to those upon which I have insisted with a special reference to the church of England, are, mutatis mutandis, capable of being brought against other established churches.
Hitherto my remarks have been exclusively applicable to established churches. But are dissenters from these altogether guiltless in this matter? Have they done, are they doing, nothing, to sanction the practices, to flatter the hopes, to forward the objects of the common enemy?
I grant that dissenters do not boast of their connection with the church of Rome, by adopting the figment of the apostolical succession, as their brethren of the establishment are found to do. The former are not yet so far gone as like the latter to glory in their shame. Notwithstanding this, the relationship borne by dissenting bodies, as well as established churches, to the Romish harlot — both having sprung, either mediately or immediately, from her as parent stock — is of itself calculated to induce the suspicion of a family likeness subsisting between the one and the other. And what at first is mere suspicion, a more minute enquiry into the nature and constitution of dissenting communities, and a more enlarged acquaintance with their history, convert into certainty.14
14 [All fleshly churches are the offspring of one common parent, the fallen church of Judea. Therefore, their family likeness, after making every allowance for personal diversities, is very striking. Vix facies omnibus una; nec diversa tamen: qualem decet esse sororum. — See Adv. to second Edition.]
[25] The following connected observations will render manifest the alleged resemblance between churchmen and dissenters; and shew how the latter have combined with the former in lending the weight of their influence to promote the Popish cause.
I. Is a charge of having generally disputed about mere trifles, but too applicable to churchmen? Dissenters are involved in the same condemnation; for, in the selection of the questions to be debated between them and churchmen, and by them with one another, it would seem as if they had been uniformly actuated by a consideration of the inverse ratio of their magnitude and consequence. Seldom have Protestants been found contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. For one who, like John Barclay of Edinburgh, has sustained against all opposition a controversy of real, because infinite importance, scores nay hundreds of the Reformed divines have started, and have expended their strength in debating about the most trumpery questions of worship and discipline. Am I not warranted in speaking thus of the topics, the discussion of which has generally agitated the Protestant world? — Is water baptism identical with regeneration? Should the rite be administered by sprinkling or immersion? Should its subjects be infants or adults? Should the Lord’s supper be dispensed once a week, once a month, or once a year? Should the feet of disciples whether requiring it or not, be washed? Should the kiss of charity, whether the ordinary mode of salutation or not, be given? — such is a specimen of the questions which have occupied the attention of the Reformed, to the almost total exclusion of every other. Or if, at any time, Protestant disputes have taken a loftier flight, it has been, perhaps, to assert the divine right of presbyterianism, against its great rival episcopacy; or to prove the superiority of the independent form of church government to both. Could the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh have exhibited more zeal in resisting the slightest encroachment on their heaven-taught ritual, than Protestants of every description have shewn in contending for the mere crotchets of their own brains?
“Strange! that such discord there should be,
‘Twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”
And in what a spirit, too, have these controversies generally been conducted! — Need I insist on the gratification which all this must have afforded to the Romish Hierarchy? Indeed, one cannot help sometimes indulging a suspicion, that Roman [26] Catholics have had more to do with the origination of the disputes in question, than Protestants are aware of. The witty Dean of St. Patrick’s acquaints us, “that seamen have a custom, when they meet a whale, to fling him out an empty tub by way of amusement, to divert him from laying violent hands upon the ship.”15 And have not the controversies which exist among Protestants, very much the appearance of a tub thrown out by the church of Rome to the Reformation whale? Of this I am certain, that, whether intended to be so or not, they have answered the purpose of one surprisingly well. Like the apple of Atalanta, they have had the effect of withdrawing the attention of guilty men from concerns of infinitely greater moment. Amidst the din occasioned by the discussion of them, the knowledge of Christ and Him crucified, and that perfect purgation of the conscience which stands necessarily connected with, the introduction of the divine righteousness into it — the only principles about the possession of which by their fellow men, enlightened members of the church of the living God feel any real interest — have been thrown into the back ground and almost entirely forgotten. And can we conceive a fitter way of indirectly promoting the designs of the Papacy, than for churchmen and dissenters, thus, as it were, of common consent, to exclude from notice topics of real magnitude; and, by the everlasting discussion of questions which respect external things merely, to justify the importance which has always been attached to these by their grand antagonist?
15 Tale of a Tub: preface.
2. But it is not merely as having by the nature of their disputes indirectly promoted the cause of Popery, that dissenters as well as churchmen are culpable. Both are obnoxious to the charge of having done the same thing directly; and this by the countenance which they have afforded to some of its worst practices. Let me instance, extreme unction, prayers for the dead, and the canonization of saints. I grant, there is among Protestants no anointing with oil of persons who are in extremis; but is not the administration of the Lord’s supper, to those who are so situated, regarded by members of the established church as a viaticum equally indispensable and equally efficacious?16 There are among Protestants no prayers [27] for the dead;17 but unless prayers were repeated over the dead, would their quiet and comfortable repose, in the estimation of surviving friends, be ensured? There is, on the part of Protestants no formal beatification of the deceased — no formal admission of them into the roll of saints, by a decree of Popes and Cardinals; but are Protestant mourners, especially if wealthy, satisfied, “until the man of God” has, at the grave, or from the pulpit, pronounced a eulogium on the virtues of the departed, and until his passport to the realms of bliss has thus been regularly “signed, sealed, and delivered?” Say not that such practices are confined to churchmen. The ghostly consolations of the pastor to the dying man, the service repeated over the grave, and the flattering funeral sermon — the regular Protestant mode of canonizing the saints — are as much in request among dissenters, as they can be among the members of established churches. Indeed let me do the church of Scotland justice, it is, in so far as respects a burial service, more faultless than those who in England style themselves par excellence the evangelical dissenters. — Now, as the practices to which I have alluded had a Popish origin, have they not also manifestly a Popish tendency? They foster the idea of something over and above the work of Christ — of some external ceremonial — being requisite to ensure the salvation of the dying and the dead. From Jesus, as Himself alone the resurrection and the life, they necessarily withdraw attention. But is not to do so the very essence of Popery? And from submitting to the death bed and funeral mummeries of Protestants, to a reception of the corresponding mummeries of Roman Catholics, what, pray, is the mighty transition?
16 The following form of absolution occurs in The Order for the Visitation of the Sick: — “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences: and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Can anything more unscriptural and offensive than this be extracted from the mass book itself? May we not apply to the man who presumes to use such language, the queries proposed to their own minds by the scribes and pharisees of old — Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? Luke 5:21.
Not many days have elapsed since I heard Mr. Pope, at the Liverpool Amphitheatre, endeavour to horrify the minds of his numerous auditory by quotations from Dens., which went to prove that “in the confessional the priest sits as God.” In what other character, pray, does the man who pronounces the above cited absolution act?
Fellow worm of the dust! If thou wouldst have us believe that thou has power on earth to forgive sins, cause the sick man whom thou absolvest to take up his bed and walk! Luke 5:24; Acts 8:34.
17 At least, there should be none. But dare we say that Dr. Johnson has found no imitators? — Vide “Boswell’s Life of Johnson.”
3. Besides, dissenters have concurred with churchmen in adopting and acting on the Popish dogma, that theology, or the knowledge of God, may be taught and acquired like any science of mere human origin. And this, in express contradiction to, and marked contempt of the declarations of the scriptures themselves. “They shall be all taught of God,”18 says the faithful and true witness, speaking of His genuine disciples. “They shall be taught of man,” meekly [28] and modestly respond those who nevertheless pretend to belong to their number. From persons whose first step is to give the lie direct to the Holy Ghost, what but a series of practices contradicting the revealed mind and will of God was to have been expected? Hence the perusal in schools and colleges of the impure writers of Greece and Rome, and the study of the intricacies of the scholastic theology, as the only fitting preparation for teaching the pure and simple doctrines of the Son of God. Hence it is that from these seminaries of human learning, after having had imposed upon them the hands of
“Lawn-robed prelate or plain presbyter,”
(a most blasphemous ceremony, by the bye), in due time issue forth the pretended ambassadors of Him who knew not letters, having never learned — the pretended successors of illiterate tax-gatherers and fishermen — on their pretended divine mission. — “And do Protestants tamely submit to all this?” — Submit! Aye, more. They will have it so. Unless subject to a bishop, sanctioned by a presbytery, or connected with some Independent Union or Baptist Association, it is in vain for any one to attempt to call the attention of Protestants to the topic of religion. Even the Apostle Paul himself, unless accredited by some respectable body of religionists, would not now be listened to. On the other hand, let the preacher have human authority on his side — let him be able to plead in his behalf the sanction of synods or conferences — and woe betide the unhappy wight who shall venture to call in question the truth of his assertions. — And is this anything but Popery? — broad, undisguised, revolting Popery? What though the man who lays his conscience prostate at the feet of another be called a Protestant. Is his practice less Popish on that account? According to Roman Catholics, to men taught by their fellow men, and to such only, the ignorant laity are to look for instruction in divine things. At the lips of such priests the people are to seek for knowledge. When papists, therefore, surrender themselves blindly to the guidance of their clergy, they act consistently with their avowed principles. But when the Reformed — the professors of a purer faith — the noisy contemners and stigmatizers of Popery and all its practices — are found as dependent for instruction on humanly-taught individuals, and as submissive to their authority, as Roman Catholics themselves can be, what are we to think? Nay to what practical consequences does such a state of things obviously and necessarily conduct? If to human authority in matters of religion our consciences are after all to be subject, why did our forefathers originally leave, and why do we their descendants persevere in standing aloof from the church of [29] Rome? In regard to points concerning which all men must by nature be equally ignorant, and which no man can know except by divine teaching, why should one set of human instructors be preferred to another? — So well aware is the Romish church of the advantages which she derives from the submission of the various sects and parties of Protestants to human teachers of religion — so clearly does she perceive this to have occasioned many of her recent conversions, and to tend towards the ultimate restoration of her spiritual authority — that for many years back she has ceased to make any direct attempts at subverting the influence of the Protestant clergy.19
18 John 6:45, quoted from Isaiah 54:13.
19 [Written in 1835.]
4. But, perhaps, in the lengths to which I have pushed matters in the last paragraph, I do both churchmen and dissenters injustice. Although for the sake of order, and with a view to edification, subject externally to human authority in matters of religion, it may be, that any reproach connected with this circumstance is mitigated, if not entirely removed by the love which both classes bear to the word of God, and the persevering diligence with which they are found examining into its sacred contents. Perhaps, like the Bereans of old, their constant enquiry, after listening to one of their human instructors, is, are these things so? and to the scriptures, as the only court of ultimate appeal, are the matters in question uniformly carried. Perhaps, in consequence of this submissive and childlike behaviour, they, especially the dissenters, are rewarded with new and important manifestations of the divine character — the views of their predecessors in the Christian race, however valuable for the time being, are seen by them to have been limited and self-inconsistent in comparison with their own — and so grateful are they to their Heavenly Father for the flood of spiritual light thus poured in upon their understandings, that the only strife known among their different bodies is, as to which shall advance the farthest and the most rapidly in the career of scriptural discovery. — My fellow dissenters, for to you particularly would I address myself, is it so? Would you thank the man who should represent you as thus vigorously prosecuting your researches into the meaning of God’s most holy word? On the contrary, would you not treat him as one who was dealing out to you the bitterest irony? — You know well, that ever since the period of your existence as distinct bodies, you have not advanced one step in the knowledge of divine truth. Your sentiments at the present moment are, at the best, what the sentiments of your respective founders were. In but too many cases, they are not even so scriptural. Like everything [30] human, most of you are sadly deteriorated. But let me suppose that your views are as correct as those of your predecessors were; is this what, had you been diligent searchers of the scriptures, they should have been? Did God’s word teach your forefathers, has it taught you, all that it is capable of communicating? Have your finite minds, or have the finite minds of any other human beings, however capacious, exhausted the meaning of that book, which is the revelation to the creature of the infinite mind of the Creator? — You know, and profess to believe, that a scribe well instructed in the things of the kingdom of heaven, is like a householder continually bringing out of his treasure things new as well as old. Let me grant, for the sake of argument, that all the old things of your scribes are correct: pray where are the new? Is it not matter of fact that you, no less than the established churches which you condemn, have come to a complete standstill in religion? Or, to express myself more accurately, that you, like them, are content to tread the same dull round — the same gin-horse tract — without intermission and without end? Is this, then, the grand secret of popularity, among dissenters as well as churchmen — merely to toss back to an auditory, with some little variety of phrase, and occasional displays of human eloquence, views with which they have been familiar from their earliest infancy? — You object, perhaps, to the written creeds and confessions of establishments. But is an unwritten creed — a set of human opinions to which, through thick and thin, you are pledged to adhere — anyway less objectionable? Is a creed less deserving of the name, because, instead of being reduced to the form of thirty-nine articles, or thirty-three chapters, it appears in the looser shape of a treatise, like Doddridge’s Rise and Progress? My dear dissenting friends, you know right well, that none can obtain admission into your respective sects and parties, or, after being admitted, would be retained as members, except on the express condition of accommodating their views of scripture to the sentiments ordinarily current among you. For any one to call your attention to doctrines contained in the word of God, which you had hitherto overlooked, would be to expose himself to the hazard of being expelled from your communions. Is not this to subject the mind of God to the mind of man, to all intents and purposes? — Confessions of faith, and articles of religion, whether written or unwritten, when made use of as stepping-stones to something ulterior, may be tolerated. Limited as the human mind necessarily is, it can become acquainted with divine truth only to a certain extent; and the extent to which divine truth is at any time apprehended by a man or body of men, constitutes his or their creed. Honestly to give expression to this in words, never [31] can be blameworthy on the part of individuals or of communities. But when present creeds, instead of being the precursors of something better, are employed as barriers in the path of scriptural discovery — when, instead of the creed being accommodated to the scriptures, the scriptures are stretched on the creed, as on a rack, or a Procrustes’ bed — when, instead of a man better instructed from above to-morrow than he is to day, being permitted to profess his clearer views and impart them to others, he is expected ten, twenty, thirty, forty years hence, nay, during his whole lifetime, never to see or to profess more divine truth than he is acquainted with at the present moment — I say, when such is the use made of creeds, both by established churches and by dissenting communities, is there not virtually a claim to infallibility for such creeds set up on the part of both, as decisive as any that ever emanated from the church of Rome? And of what real use, henceforward, are the scriptures, when, by articles of human origin and human composition, these scriptures are virtually set aside? Protestants, whether belonging to the established church or dissenters, in that limitation of your views of scripture which has resulted from the abuse of creeds and articles, behold one of the grand causes of the recent increase of Popery. God’s word is emphatically the sword of the spirit. By it, and by it alone, are the enemies of the Messiah subdued. When vigorously plied, no instrument can be conceived more formidable in the attack and demolition of error. But when blunted by the wisdom of man — when restrained within the bounds of a human creed — when rendered subservient merely to the promulgation of human opinions— impotent, indeed, is the word of truth found to be. Popery, in that case defies its attacks, its priesthood absolutely laugh at it. The scriptures, confined within the trammels of a confession of faith, have nothing to terrify them. — The subjection by Protestants of the word of God to human articles, justifies Roman Catholics in their subjection of it to the decrees of Popes and Councils. But it does more. It gives them a positive opening into the territory of the Reformation, an opening of which latterly they have not neglected to avail themselves. If Protestantism, taken at such a disadvantage, be quailing before the attacks of its great enemy, can we wonder at the result?
5. The cause of Popery has been materially promoted by the tendency of dissenting bodies to become, and by the fact of their actually in due time becoming mere secular associations. “This, unquestionably, established churches are. But can it be, that communities which pride themselves on the spirituality of their origin and character, fall to be classed under no higher category?” Even so, gentle reader. The [32] descendants of persons originally brought together by some thing like principle, are almost always retained in connection with one another by hereditary prejudices, by custom, by neighbourhood, by affinity. Where is the evangelic congregation of thirty years’ standing, which will bear even a very ordinary scrutiny into the motives which have induced the majority of those who compose it, to add themselves to its number? Is it not matter of notoriety, that the success of professional men, and advantageous connections of various kinds, are no uncommon results of a regular attendance at chapel or meeting-house? — One most decided proof of the intense worldliness of dissenting bodies is afforded by the fact, that their members, and even their pastors, are not unfrequently heard boasting of the wealth and consequence of the individuals who see meet to honour them with their support. — ”The Independent cause at Overrich is flourishing: Mr. Transfer, the merchant who, by dint of industry and management, has contrived to amass a plum, has lately become an adherent.” — “Look at the persons who surround that table: they are dissenters of the Baptist persuasion, members of Mr. Saving’s congregation, and are worth their quarter of a million.” And this, too, from the lips of the professed followers of Him. who knew not where to lay his head; and whose apostles achieved their triumphs, not by silver and gold, but amidst poverty, and sufferings, and reproach, by the preaching of the ignominious cross? Know not such men, that in boasting of their own wealth, or the wealth of their partisans, they boast of that which in every age has preceded, indeed, has been one of the main causes of the church’s corruption? — But, be it so. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Dissenting communities, it appears, if prudently conducted, become in due time wealthy, and respectable, and — worldly also. And having thus reached their proper level, they speak openly of the world, and the world as a matter of course heareth them. But under such circumstances, why should they persevere in bringing a charge of worldliness against ecclesiastical establishments? Besides the ungraciousness of persons who are themselves in the same condemnation thus acting, can they expect to be listened to by the enlightened followers of the Lamb? Quis tolerit Gracchos de seditions quærentes? How much more fitly would repentance for having indulged in practises, and exhibited a spirit by which the cause of error has been materially promoted, become all those who have been chargeable with them. — Churchmen and dissenters, little are you aware of the encouragement which you have afforded to the church of Rome, by that feature of worldliness which is common to all your religious associations. What have papists to dread from men whose god is their belly, [33] whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things? They know well that secularity of temper, views, and pursuits, never yet stood connected with active, zealous, and efficient exertions in behalf of the cause of Christ. They see it to have paralysed all the efforts of the Reformed in time past. They count on its continuing to do the same in time to come. — You are endeavouring, fellow Protestants, to promote the worldly rank and respectability of your different religious societies. In your attempts you may succeed. But in exact proportion as you do so, you approve yourselves the confederates, you forward the objects of your common enemy.
Have I not now satis superque proved my position, that the growth of Popery in our day is as much owing to the corrupt doctrines and practices of Protestants, as it is to any direct efforts made by Roman Catholics themselves?
All that I have stated, and much more to the same effect, is well known to the Babylonish harlot. Hence the complacency with which she looks on Protestant churches committing fornication, without shame or remorse, with the kings of the earth; and on their office-bearers clothing themselves in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day, and “lifting up their mitred heads in courts and parliaments.” Strange, indeed, would it be, if the church of Rome, aware of the obligations under which she lies to establish churches, for having brought the Reformation into a stationary, if not even a retrograde condition; for having contaminated and corrupted the various dissenting communities which have sprung from their bosom; and for having, by their existence and instrumentality, caused a spirit of indifference to the truth of the everlasting gospel to become the prevailing characteristic of Protestant communities; — I say, strange would it be, if the church of Rome could, under such circumstances, fail to recognize in the Protestant establishments of Europe her most useful and efficient auxiliaries.
And yet, debased and corrupted as the Reformed churches are, — fearful as is the admixture of Popery which has entered into and spoiled all their institutions,20 — from among them I discern a gleam of light arising, the feeble but certain harbinger of a brighter day.
20 [Baptismal regeneration, the real presence in the Eucharist, Mariolatry, the honour paid to saints, the claim of infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the turning of his back on the people by the priest, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the administration of penance and absolution, are merely the grosser forms of this admixture. It has others more refined, but equally perilous.]
True it is that Popery has progressed, and is progressing. And true it is, likewise, that no human means of arresting its progress is apparent. An imposing system of itself, and [34] secretly but effectively aided by the traitorous systems which profess to be diametrically opposed to it, where is the mere human force which can turn the battle from our gates, and cover the enemy with confusion? Nowhere, most assuredly. Sed lux venit ab alto. In the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, is God himself, is the church’s help found. And by the same instrument by which the deadly wound was inflicted on the beast, shall it finally be slain.
To the word of the living God, and to it alone do I look, for an effectual stop being put to the onward march of Popery.
Eighteen centuries ago it was prophesied that the Man of Sin, whose rise, progress, and astonishing temporary success, the apostle has graphically delineated, was reserved to be destroyed by the spirit of Christ’s mouth, and by the brightness of his coming.21 And has anything since occurred to warrant us in supposing that the Lord hath altered His mind with regard to this matter? No. Hitherto all human means of accomplishing the tyrant’s overthrow have most signally failed. The only defeat of any consequence which he ever sustained, was at the period of the Reformation; and that by the resuscitation of the scriptures, and the use of them made by those who then took their stand in front of the Protestant line. But his defeat was merely partial and temporary. His forces he speedily rallied. Among his avowed enemies he soon found friends and supporters. The dure and unadulterated statements of the word of God, by adherring to which alone the conquest over him could have been rendered permanent and complete, he soon contrived to neutralize, by means of the human traditions therewith, at his suggestion, his secret emissaries imbued the Reformed institutions. Thenceforward, like Samson deprived of his hair, the Protestant cause was powerless; and the spiritual Delilah, by whose treacherous importunities it had been induced to part with that “wherein its great strength lay,” having it now completely at her mercy, might sport with it at any time and in any way that whim or policy might dictate.
21 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
But Samson’s locks in process of time grew. In Protestantism, weak and inert as for awhile it has appeared, there lies latent a principle, by the development of which, at the appointed period, its corrupters and oppressors are destined to be completely overthrown. To the scriptures of truth as the spirit of Christ’s mouth, and to the complete opening up their meaning as the brightness of His coming, we have seen that the apostle points as the means, and the only means of the Man of Sin’s discomfiture. These scriptures, blessed be God, from the time of the Reformation downwards, the inha-[35]bitants of Protestant countries have had in their hands. Popish as the Reformed institutions are, and dense as is the veil which they have drawn over the language of the Holy Ghost, Protestant authorities have never been able materially to corrupt that language, or to deprive their subjects of a privilege once conceded to them. Nay, to encourage to a certain degree the perusal of the scriptures, circumstances have actually compelled them. In this simple fact, of the possession of the word of God translated into their different vernacular tongues by Protestants, lies concealed the germ of Popery’s ultimate destruction. To one Protestant after another, views of divine truth which had previously escaped the observation of his fellows, have through their instrumentality been disclosed. To these views, once published, the press gives permanency and circulation. From one mind they thus travel to others. By such not only are they entertained, but, in consequence of them, new and still clearer views are suggested; and thus a system in itself at first extremely defective, acquires depth, breadth and consistency as, rolling along, it receives the contributions of the various minds to which the original hint had been rendered the means of ulterior discoveries. In the light of divine truth more and more beaming forth, the abominations of Popery become more and more apparent; until at last so great becomes the intensity of its lustre, that into the shades of everlasting night the monster is compelled finally to retire.
Is Popery, however, destined to perish alone? To recur to our simile: from the overthrow of his Phillistine oppressors did Samson escape? I trow not. In pulling down the pillars upon which their temple rested, and thus consigning them to instant destruction, he necessarily overwhelmed himself. Exactly the same, whether its supporters will hear or whether they will forbear, is the fate which awaits Protestantism. By its means Popery shall be destroyed. The two grand pillars upon which the Popish system rests are, the substitution of man’s traditions for God’s word, and of man’s church, consisting of unrenewed human beings, for God’s church consisting of the redeemed from among men.22 At these pillars, through the medium of the encouragement which she avowedly gives to the reading of the scriptures, Protestantism is pulling with all her might. And, in due time, down they come, with the entire system which they have so long contributed to support. But, in falling, they necessarily involve all Protestant systems in their ruin. Built on the same foundation as that which it is professedly desirous to subvert. Protestantism must be content to share its fate. — O! glorious plan of divine providence! Popery shall not overcome its [36] weakened but still struggling rival. None but Protestantism itself shall be its own conqueror.
22 See James 1:18, and Revelations 14:4.
And yet, why should Protestants grieve at the prospect thus held out to them? The various Reformed systems, like Popery itself, were never intended to be anything else, than so many steps in advance towards the establishment of a system infinitely superior to them all. When the glorious edifice, in the construction of which they are employed, shall have been completed, — when the top stone, with the shoutings of grace, grace unto it, shall have been put on, — why should the scaffolding be suffered to remain? Human church establishments may go; the voluntary question may be disposed of in a way not altogether agreeable to those who with such zeal and energy have recently engaged in it: but as the Lord is to supersede existing institutions with a view to His taking to Himself His own great power and reigning, and as believers are to be thenceforward subject directly to his sway, in the anticipation of such a state of things there is not, surely, much to lament. Or if the kings and the clergy of all denominations, the merchants who have trafficked in the dainties of the mystic Babylon, see meet to bewail her fall; and, standing afar off, wring their hands in all the agonies of disappointment and despair; why should we, who perceive the glorious issue to which matters are tending, and rejoice in the prospect of our divine Head overturning every species of opposition to his authority, act as if we sympathised with them in their feelings? Rather let us raise by anticipation the shout of triumph wherewith the whole church of the redeemed are represented as receiving the notification of their grand enemy’s overthrow: saying, Alleluia; salvation, and glory, and honour and power; unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are His judgments; for He hath judged the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand. And again let us exclaim, Alleluia, as, by the eye of faith, we behold her smoke rising up for ever and ever.23
23 Revelation 19:1-3.
Often in my boyish days, have I listened to the prayer: “Lord! in thine own good time consume the Man of Sin, and reform the Reformed churches more and more.” Little, I suspect, were the utterers aware of what they were petitioning for. Like the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice, they used words the meaning of which was hid from their eyes. Answered, notwithstanding, their supplication shall be. The Man of Sin shall be destroyed; and along with him shall perish all that family of spurious Christian churches to which [37] he has given birth: — their destruction being the only reformation of which they are susceptible.
There was no small sagacity, no small share of the wisdom of this world, displayed by those prelates and other dignitaries of the church of England who, about forty or fifty years since, set themselves in opposition to the British and Foreign Bible Society. Nominally Protestants, these men were to all intents and purposes papists at heart. They therefore felt annoyed at the circulation and encouragement given to the reading of a book, by the increasing light of which, they saw clearly existing Protestant institutions, no less than the system of Popery, ran the risque of being subverted. Indeed they proclaimed openly the danger to the church of England which was likely to accrue from the experiment. But, blessed be God, they were not listened to. Cassandra like, they spoke, and spoke in vain. The Bible Society, in spite of their opposition, was formed; and for a time abundantly flourished. Societies with kindred objects are still continually springing up. The scriptures, in consequence of their united efforts, are circulated and read. The fruits of this are, even already, beginning to appear. A spirit of enquiry has been excited, which is already felt to be troublesome; and which ere long will become by all the expedients of human policy absolutely unmanageable. The shrewd anticipations of the Marsh’s, and the other opponents of the Bible Society, are beginning to be realized. And a system which the Owens’ and the Hughes’ of a former day, men sagacious in their generation I ween,24 were pleased to patronize, under a secret impression that evangelical church of Englandism or the principles of dissent might thereby be promoted, is gradually but certainly progressing towards the downfall of that Babel of contending sects, which now heartily, but blindly, concur in giving it their support.
24 How much, in my observation of professors of religion, am I struck at the degree in which the wisdom of this world passes current among them, for the wisdom that cometh down from above.
Before finishing, one or two additional remarks may with propriety be submitted to my readers.
It will be observed that throughout the pamphlet the author has abstained from treating of his subject in a political point of view. This he has done, not from ignorance of the degree to which he might have strengthened his argument thereby, but of set purpose. He has no wish to mix up himself or his cause with the passing politics of the day.25 Had he chosen, he might have shewn, that the exaction of tithes from an unwilling population — that the presentation of men to livings who are indifferent, if not obnoxious to those whom they are appointed to instruct — and that the lordly state maintained [38] by the pretended successors of the fishermen of Galilee — are anything but calculated to conciliate attachment to the church of England, and anything but likely to stem the onward torrent of Popery. Had he done so, however, he must have laid himself open to the imputation of aiming, not at the spread of truth, but at the advancement of mere party politics. Now, although, like every educated man in Great Britain, he is a politician, and not ashamed on proper occasions to avow the sentiments which he holds, the author, as a follower of the Lamb, has for years regarded politics as a matter of exceedingly subordinate importance. As a pilgrim and a stranger upon earth — as moving towards that city of everlasting habitation of which through grace he is enrolled a denizen — he wishes chiefly to keep before his own mind, and would wish chiefly to keep before the minds of his fellow-believers, views and motives of a spiritual kind. He, therefore, wants the disposition, perhaps also the ability, to treat a subject like that on which he has chosen to write, in a political point of view. The progress of divine truth he sees to be impeded, and the advance of Popery to be promoted, by the Reformed churches themselves; and seeing this to be the case, to bring this important fact, not politics, under the notice of his readers, has been his object in the composition of the present treatise.
25 Let the potsherds strive with the potsherds of the earth. Isaiah 45:9.
To some it may have been matter of surprise, that I should hitherto have preserved a nearly total silence with respect to that spirit of persecution, by which Protestant churches are so strikingly assimilated to their common parent. The fact is, that a feeling of delicacy has almost entirely sealed up my lips on this topic. Having myself been twice dragged to the bar of an established church for holding and propagating sentiments which its members were pleased to deem heretical, any remarks which I might make, however just and cogent, would, I was well aware, at once be set down to the score of personal pique. And yet, facts are stubborn things. Why, because an improper motive may be assigned for my conduct, should I be deterred from stating what I know to be true? Laying my own case, then, altogether out of the question, (although an appeal to the scriptures made by me twenty-two years ago, and a casting out of the synagogue as the only answer to that appeal which I have yet received, might afford no unapt illustration of what I am treating of,)26 I observe, that down from the lordly church of England, to the smallest conventicle in our land, the spirit of persecution may with the utmost ease be traced. That spirit cannot now, certainly, go to the same lengths which it did in former times: it cannot [39] now drag its victims to the gibbet or the stake: but it nevertheless exists, and will take every fitting opportunity of shewing that it does so. It may do no more than deprive of what are denominated church privileges; nay, it may not even exceed the Ishmael-like sneer; but it will push its enmity as far as it can. The principle in which it originates, is dislike of the revealed character of God; and, therefore, wherever clearer views of God are presented than the individual or the body can at the time receive, the spirit of persecution will necessarily come out, in the shape of opposition to them, and to him by whom they are supported. As, in the days of Abraham, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, (by the way, he merely laughed at him), even so is it now.27 Bodies of men, then, whether established churches or dissenting congregations, who not only cling to present doctrines and usages, but cast out of their communion all who would bring the light of scripture to bear upon these, must be contented, with the church of Rome and the other members of the Ismaelitish family whose practices they are sanctioning, to be cast into that outer darkness, where there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.
26 Such of my readers as are desirous of farther information on this subject, are referred to my “Recent Correspondence with the Presbytery of Glasgow,” published in 1828.
27 Galatians 4:29.
Now I have done.
I think I have proved that other causes, besides the active exertions of Roman Catholics themselves, are at work in promoting the onward career of Popery. And I think I have also proved that, by means of the increasing light of scripture danger is threatened to other systems besides that of which the Papal Anti-Christ is ostensibly the head.
Fellow Protestants, has a conviction, nay has even a suspicion of the truth of my statements and reasonings, reached your consciences? If so, beware how you treat the unwelcome visitant.
London: Printed by H. K. Lewis, 136, Gower Street.
THE REFORMED UNIVERSALIST 