Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the dynasty of HIM, in whom the natures are united, we find that required progression beyond which progress can not go. We find the point of elevation never to be exceeded meetly coïncident with the final period never to be terminated-the infinite in height harmoniously associated with the eternal in duration. Creation and the Creator meet at one point, and in one person. The long-ascending line from dead matter to man has been a progress Godwards, not on a symptolical progress, but destined from the beginning to furnish a point of union; and occupying that point as true God and true man, as Creator and created, we recognize the adorable Monarch of all the Future."

ART. IV. THE MEMORIAL.

An Exposition of the Memorial. By One of the Memorialists. A Few Thoughts, Etc. By Catholicus.

A Sermon before the Pennsylvania Convention. By Dr. BOWMAN.

The Catholic Work of the P. E. Church in America. By a Presbyter.

We make no apology for introducing this subject again into our pages. It is one of interest to all intelligent persons who love the Church. For many years no question has been so prominent among us. We have placed above the titles of some of the publications the subject has elicited. All our religious papers have more or less discussed it, and if their columns had been freely opened to all that was, and in that case would have been offered, it is likely they would have had room for little else. In various Episcopal addresses the matter has been re

NOTE.-"The Memorial" has opened a wide field for discussion and for diversities of opinion among honest advocates of a common cause. We augur only good of the movement. Those who signed the paper, in their honest aims at a general advantage, gave voice to the tendency of the times.-ED.

ferred to. The Commission of the House of Bishops has had several meetings, and from what has transpired of their doings we have reason to think well of the spirit in which they are proceeding. They have laboriously set themselves to work to ascertain the general sentiment of the Church as to what can be done for rendering our body more efficient in the ministration of the Gospel and fulfilling her appointed mission. For this purpose they have issued a series of questions, not to the clergy only, but to the laity-" the brethren," as having a common interest and a common voice. We hope the brethren thus addressed will not leave the matter exclusively in the hands of the clergy. It is a good day for religion and the Church when the laity take a lively interest in all that concerns her welfare, and when the more intelligent of them think it worth while to devote attention to the great questions which from time to time are mooted. It is a subject of regret and sometimes of surprise, to find a high degree of ignorance and indifference on these topics, in quarters where we might expect something else. The Commission must not be discouraged in their work if they do not receive as many replies to their questions as they anticipated. This arises, not from a conviction that there is nothing to be done, nor yet from a want of interest in the whole matter, but from a sense of modesty, or an apprehension on the part of some, that what they write will, almost necessarily, be overlooked in the multitude of communications. Perhaps it might have been well specially to solicit answers from a certain number of the more experienced and prominent clergy and laity.

It must be allowed that there was a certain haziness about the movement at its first appearance in the House of Bishops. The "Memorial of sundry Presbyters" seems to lay too much. of the acknowledged want of success upon defects in the "means and appliances," while it says nothing of more potent causes. This opinion, solemnly announced by men of various theological and ecclesiastical complexion, no wonder that it occasioned some little surprise and questioning among those to whom the paper was addressed. Above all, the setting loose of Bishops to do as they pleased, and the proposition for "an ecclesiastical system broader and more comprehensive"

than we have, "surrounding and including the Protestant Episcopal Church as it now is, leaving that Church untouched," cast doubt upon the whole movement. Fortunately for the hope of something practical and good being the result, this scheme has as yet had no advocate except one. Difficult as it is even to conceive of the working of such a system, we confess we like the spirit which could propose and entertain it, even for a moment. It is, we hope, something of that mind which our Lord approves among his people, and which, wherever it exists, is always tending toward a closer and more visible union among his disciples-an union of hearts and hands, quite consistent with considerable diversity of view and practice. We doubt the possibility, at present, of doing any thing toward the attainment of this happy result for our "American Protestant Christianity," (as the Memorialists express it,) but we do hope that some little advance may be made toward that end, in consequence of the present movement. Certain we are, that whatever tends to unity among Christians generally, is favorable to the prosperity of the churches separately; and whatever barrier each may interpose to isolate itself, is, on the whole, prejudicial to its own interests. The principles of genuine progress are principles of wise and generous union. Among the first steps toward the reünion of Protestant Christians is the mutual recognition of each other as Christ's true people. This spirit shows itself in the Memorial, and in the Circular issued by the Commission. Let it be followed up. Let us avoid that temper sometimes manifested by Churchmen, who think that loyalty to their own communion requires that they should shut their eyes to what is good among other Chistians, and move on as if there were none such about them.

It resulted from the circumstances of the case, that the Memorial should take no notice of the chief cause of our deficient fruits as a Church, and that is the existence of doctrinal views and practice quite inconsistent with the genuine meaning of our Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy, those admirable exponents of Scripture. To this fact some of those who signed the Memorial were not alive, although they deeply felt that something was amiss, and that we were not, as a whole, meeting our responsibilities. This conviction is by no means confined to

those whose names are annexed to that paper. What a change from the general tone of self-gratulation which years ago was so common! Had that Memorial been signed only by LowChurchmen it would have met with no special attention. As coming from persons of such opposite views it could not but awaken interest. It was the expression of certain feelings which they had in common. We will not inquire too strictly whether each subscriber gave his assent and consent to every thing in the document. We only look upon them as united in the conviction that something was to be done for our beloved Church, to render her more like what her Saviour designed. Some of them believed in their hearts that there were difficulties more serious than those named; but of course they could not ask that these should be introduced into the Memorial; and in putting their names to it they did nothing inconsistent with their known views. For our part, we are free to declare our sense of profound obligation to one and all of those who have brought the subject before the Church. They have in fact led to the whole body's resolving itself into a committee of inquiry concerning its condition. Nay, they have done more they have brought us to the open confession of great defect, and earnestly to ask how it may be remedied.

We had no right to look to the Memorial for a full exposition of the evils of the Church, but in framing replies to the questions of the Bishops, we may and ought to express our whole mind. One of the questions proposed is, "Could any change be advantageously made in the prevalent character of our preaching?" The reply of all so-called evangelical men is, that the doctrines of the pulpit have been in a serious measure at variance with those of the desk, of our church standards generally, and of the Bible. We speak of Puseyism as the cause of evil, and doubtless it has contributed to corrupt the fountains of instruction among us. But if the name of Dr. Pusey had never been heard of, and the movement at Oxford had not taken place, there would have been very much to mourn over. The truth is, that Puseyism, in its elements and working, existed in the Church long before, and together with it other phases of doctrine contrary to the truth. Upon the first establishment of the standards of our Church, there seems VOL. III.-5

to have been scarcely a leading man in the Church of England who did not fully assent to them. Soon after the Reformation, however, there arose in the English Church some who departed more or less from the views of their predecessors. Sometimes they ignored her vital principles, sometimes they contradicted them. Now they elevated inferior matters of policy or form into prominence, and again they introduced, one by one, views quite alien to the Gospel, until at last, in the time of Laud, the Church of England, as to the leading character of her preaching and writings, became very unlike the same Church as she was at first reformed. So in a great measure, things have continued down to our own times. Had Latimer or Jewel come back to earth during the last two hundred years, at what period would they have been heartily received by the majority of their Episcopal brethren? We venture to say, that during all that period the preaching of each, as to doctrine, would have been considered out of place in not a few of the dioceses and parishes of the Church which they helped to restore and establish

The misfortune of the Church of England, in common with all the churches of the Reformation, was, that she suffered a loss of her first love, and an eclipse of that clear and full doctrine which she at first received and professed. There were indeed not wanting those who at different times held and taught the whole doctrine and practice of God's word, but they were not the majority among her influential men. Even among the more reputable and serious of her clergy, there was a mournful departure from the views of the Reformers. Formalism, and its double aspect of mere morality on the one hand, or of a superstitious regard to rites and ordinances on the other, reigned supreme, and whenever any thing more true and scriptural appeared, it was apt to be branded as enthusiasm or hypocrisy.

Under this state of things the Church was planted in the American colonies, and that not by the hands of the best men to be found at "home." What wonder then that imperfect views of the Church and its institutions, of the Gospel and its true operation should be propagated here? It was the unhappiness of our Church in America to be from the very first reared under the influence of a system or systems very different from

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »