Page images
PDF
EPUB

speech of one whose eloquence must be admired, though his positions be controverted. "We acknowledge the same God, the same Redeemer, the same consequences, the same Bible, and † the same Testament. Agreeing in this"-Do we really agree in all this? It were to be wished we did. The object would be more likely to be attained. When our Saviour objected to the Pharisees, that, by their doctrine of the Corban, they had subverted the fifth commandment, did he and they agree in their acknowledgment of the law of Moses? Both indeed acknowledged it as coming from God; though the Pharisee by his exposition destroyed the force and intent of the original. It is to little purpose that both churches acknowledge the Bible to be the revealed word of God, as to agreement, if the doctrines they maintain, respecting some of the most essential points of belief and practice, are totally irreconcilable. Still less is it so, as the church of Rome has established an ‡ im

*Mr. Grattan.

† I believe I may safely say, that the words, the same Testament, were added merely through inadvertency.

:

The doctrines of penance and reverencing of images, and of marriage being a sacrament, have been founded on this translation the former on the words agite pœnitentiam, Matt. iii. 2. which may be translated do penance, though the original says, Milavoile, repent; and the latter on a decided error in the trauslation of Heb. xi. 21. where it says, Jacob ADORED the head of his staff, where the original says, he bowed on the head of his staff.

The council of Trent quotes Ephes. v. in fine, as an authority that marriage is a sacrament; and it is true that the Vulgate trans lation does in this passage (ver. 32) translate the words To μurngiov τουλο μɛya ss, this is a great MYSTERY, thus, SACRAMENTUM hoc

perfect translation as authentic, thereby preventing appeals to the original. Be the differences then matter of opinion; still it recurs, what influence have they as such upon society? Do they create no difference of interests? So indeed it was said; and it is to be believed that, when it was so, the idea was that of full persuasion. But where, in the experience of past ages, or our own, shall we find it so? Or is that of the present so different from all other experience, as to be an encouragement to look to it. Where religion is considered and held as detached from political interests; where it does not assume a power of controlling the opinions of those who dissent; or where it hangs so loosely as to leave the mind indifferent to the spiritual welfare of others; or if it should come to pass among Christians, as among the Hindus, and the Indians of America, that each, satisfied with his own opinion, should conclude that other religious opinions were the best for those who adopted them; then it might be granted that these differences of opinions would not cause a division of interests. Or had the Romish religion that spirit of peceableness, which is the true spirit of Christianity; and had those who profess it here, and in Ireland, no connexion with a foreign authority, the differences of interests would be greatly lessened. How far this may be hoped for,

magnum est, using the word 'Sacramentum as synonymous, not to the usual acceptation of the word sacrament, but to mystery, which is the true signification of the original word. Thus has the doctrine been founded on a wrong conception of the meaning of the passage referred to, which, through ignorance of the original, they were perhaps unable to correct.

time alone can show. The errors of the church of Rome are surely too gross to be held much longer.

As to all the peculiar doctrines above enumerated, it is evident that the church of England. must expect concessions from the church of Rome; and yet it is not improbable that the church of Rome would be most decisive, not only in refusing any, but in requiring many; and, under the specious term of conciliation, demand every thing, and yield nothing. If, however, there be a real wish in that church for conciliation, let her show it by allowing all of her community, who can read, a free use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. Without this preliminary it would be idle to expect any good result. The church of England would only commit herself by listening to the proposal, and would too late find herself the dupe of her own benevolence and sincerity *.

It is not long, since, under the idea of an ill-considered generosity and patriotic liberality, the nobility and clergy of France were throwing away their privileges, their honours, and their property, at the foot

*At a late meeting of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Dublin, it was determined

"That it is the decided opinion of the Roman-Catholic Prelates of Ireland, here assembled, that it is inexpedient to introduce any alterations in the Canonical mode hitherto observed in the nomi nation of Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, which mode experience has proved to be unexceptionable, wise, and salutary."

This determination shews nothing of a spirit of conciliation, or even of that idle concession, so much spoken of as such by the friends of the Question, of permitting the King to act the part of deference to the Pope's authority. The proposal was a deep one.

stool of popularity, in the delirium of the day, which was excited by an infatuated system, called philosophy, and terminated by an accumulation of ruin and horror, They broke down their own fences, and devastation ensued. A mistaken and fatal spirit of supposed philanthropy, that would look on man only through the medium of a theoretic representation, and not as he practically is, tore down all distinctions, and by so doing let loose all the evil passions on both sides against each other.

Before it is too late, may the consequences in a neighbouring kingdom be a salutary warning to Britain. This country owes much to the Saxon laws enacted independently of Popery; she owes much to Magna Charta, which the Papal authority annulled as far as it could; but she owes most to the Reformation. With it came the liberty to inquire into, and the knowledge to ascertain, what was true in religion, and truly beneficial to man in legislation. Be it per

mitted here to repeat, that it is to the general knowledge of the sacred writings only, that the liberal, the mild, the just, and equal temper, that distinguishes the laws of Britain, can truly be attributed. It is by this knowledge that the benevolent character, and the love of justice in the nation, were perfected to that pre-eminence which it holds in Europe. To know the Scriptures, was to know justice, and mercy, and be nevolence, as duties; not on the variable and partial authority or representation of man; but on the clear and incontrovertible authority of a divine revelation open to all. This authority to those who teach, and those who are taught, is the same; and it was the

searching into, and investigating, the grand truths it displays, that gave birth and safety to that spirit of investigation, that has explored and irradiated the powers of the human mind, investigated the properties of elementary matter, and discovered the magnificent harmony of those laws of the Creator, which rule over the motions of the lights of Heaven in their courses; and, what is yet of interest incomparably greater, given to the practice an unerring rule, to faith rational motives, and to rectitude the sure hope of eternal felicity.

The most dangerous introduction to error is an indifference to what is right. Thus far, it is to be feared, error has obtained a wide influence already. When the Roman Catholic religion is held up as Christianity, and its errors glided over, or palliated, by Protestants, what will be the natural effect upon those who are but ill-informed; and especially when, on the other side, they will be told there is no salvation out of the pale of the Romish church? Will not this facilitate the seduction to that church? most assuredly it will. But how far is the Romish religion Christianity? Transubstantiation is not Christianity, purgatory is not Christianity, Papal supremacy is not Christianity ; indulgences, invocation of saints, image worship or reverence, prayers in an unknown language, keeping back the use of the Scriptures from the people, and authenticating an imperfect translation of them. None of these are Christianity; they have nothing to do with it. Can the teaching of these be called teaching Christianity, which in great part are the very reverse of it? If then some other doctrines of Christianity

« PreviousContinue »