POPISH REMNANTS

IN 1850 Mr. Sharman Crawford, Radical Member for Rochdale, in a letter to his constituency on the subject of the 'Papal Aggression,' attacked the Church, assuming that :

It cannot be denied that the Prayer Book and Ordinances of the Established Church retain many remnants of Papal doctrines and Popish ceremonies.'

On being challenged by Dr. Molesworth to specify these remnants he adduced the following :

(1) The power of forgiving sins conferred on priests in the ordination service and concurrently therewith, the absolution given by the clergyman in the regular Church service.

(2) The doctrine of penance, as set forth in the Communion Service of Ash Wednesday.

(3) The countenance given to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

(4) Using the Sign of the Cross in Baptism.

(5) The retaining of the Roman Catholic Saints' days in our Calendar.

On these questions Dr. Molesworth replied:

I cannot, of course, enter at large into the controversy on all these points; but I will merely make such short remarks as may show that these remnants of Popery (according to your estimation) are denied and that there are reasons to doubt whether the error is not with you, instead of the Prayer Book.

And first let me generally observe that your conclusion, as to substantiating your allegation, is not very logical. Your allegation is that these remnants of Popery ' cannot be denied.' How your enumeration of certain doctrines and statements, which you believe to be such remnants, prove that the character of them cannot be denied, I am at a loss to comprehend. Not only do I, and numbers of able divines and Churchmen, well qualified to judge such questions,-deny it; but the subject has been calmly

considered and discussed by men who in scriptural and theological knowledge and profound learning and piety, have never been surpassed, if ever equalled.

The Prayer Book did not jump forth from the Reformation, like Minerva in full armour from the head of Jupiter. It is the produce of repeated consideration and careful debate, with long intervals between its several steps. They who finally left it as it is now denied, by their decision, that there were remnants of Popery in it. And I may, without disrespect to you, say that they are far better guides and higher authorities than you can pretend to be.

There may be differences of opinion whether the doctrine or expressions you mention are, or are not, remnants of Popery'; but by no process of logic can you prove that the statement of your opinions substantiates the allegation that it cannot be denied' they are so.

The Prayer Book, from its first beginning in 1537 till its last revision in 1661, a period of 124 years, underwent many alterations, with different intervals between each and with various prejudices to be considered and debated. The last revision was the result of a solemn conference between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, in which objections were examined and discussed by some of the most learned theologians, consisting of twelve principals and nine coadjutors on each side. And on neither was there any disposition to favour 'Popish remnants.' It is true that, in its early stages, there might have been an undue leaning to Popish customs, or an excessive tenderness to Popish prejudices; but in the latter stages, far from being liable to any such influence, the difficulty was to restrain the morbid fanaticism of Puritanism; which, instead of being tender towards Popery, would, in its horror of it, have made no distinction between Popish corruptions, and those primitive and decent usages and those sound doctrines, which were both in existence before Popery, and which could not be affected by its adoption and use of them. And I am sorry to observe present attempts to revive the same fanatic and blind bigotry,-to shut all the avenues for the return of Romanists to the Church, and exasperate them by abuse, rather than draw them to us by conciliation and reason.

With respect to the five instances you have adduced, I can only oppose my assertion to yours, and affirm that the doctrines of the Church, as expressed in her formularies,

far from being remnants of Popery are in accordance with Scripture and with the primitive Church; and that, as far as possible, they are enunciated in the language of Scripture.

When you term the explanations of the Church, respecting the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, 'Jesuitical,' I must in charity hope that you never read her 28th Article, or her declaration on 'kneeling at the Lord's Supper.' In those she has renounced the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of kneeling being intended as adoration of the elements, in terms as plain as language can term it. You might as well impute darkness to the sun, as Jesuitical sophistry to those words. The same is true of her declaration of the intent of the sign of the Cross in baptism.

The following extracts from the Prayer Book confirm this statement of Dr. Molesworth :

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.1

(Yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is hereby declared that no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians).2

To take away all scruple concerning the use of the sign of the Cross in baptism; the true explanation thereof and the just reason for retaining of it may be seen in the XXXth Canon, first published in the year MDCIV. The Canon is too long to cite, but it may be seen in Mant's 'Notes to the Prayer Book'; and the explanation of the office of public baptism of infants, is so ample, that it leaves no room for any candid man to charge the use of this sign as a remnant of Popish superstition.

1 XXVIIIth Article.

2 Explanation at the end of the Communion.

With regard to the retention of the names of the Saints in the Calendar, Dr. Molesworth proceeds:

In the XXIInd Article, the Church in the strongest terms condemns the invocation of the Saints (and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded on no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the Word of God ').1

She expelled the whole of the services for saints, excepting such as related to individuals distinguished as such in God's Word. And of these she only recommends the examples and imitation. And, after all this, you censure her for her moderation in leaving in a scale for marking periods of time those names, which fairs and markets, the customs of trades, the references of historical dates and other secular objects, had connected with public convenience.

I am old fashioned enough to regard history as something more than an old Almanack. I cannot help applying to present practice past experience. I remember, that morbid horror of factitious accusations of Popery were made the pretences for the judicial murders of the Commonwealth,—that the ignorant clamour against the Prayer Book led to the enforcement of the absurdities of the directory,' -that zeal for Protestantism was a plea for expelling the clergy from their benefices to make way for the sanctimonious robbers who took their offices and their property,that the Puritan theology and new light discipline ended in the cant and vagaries of 'Praise God Barebones' and the Rump Parliament,-till the sword of Cromwell put an end to the farce, which was enacted under the pretences of liberty and sectarian community. The good men that were first misled to sanction the beginnings saw not the end. The noble Falkland countenanced the introduction of crimes which he afterwards vainly shed his life's blood to prevent, the eloquent Dering lent his powers of mind to advance a miserable bigotry and fanaticism, against which he afterwards struggled for permission even to bow at the Name of Jesus. All history, especially that of the French Revolutions of the last and present century, teems with such examples. May you never be added to the number.

1 XXIInd Article.

THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES'

THE 'Tractarian' (or 'Oxford') movement originated in the Thirties,' and culminated in the Forties.'

、

It was not the work of two or three individuals, but rather the result of causes far deeper than political or other visible agencies. It arose from a spiritual awakening, and a feeling of the need of quickening the vital energy within the Church.

The Evangelical party, with success, seemed to have lost much of that simplicity and unworldliness that had been their strength.

They had a tendency to remove the distinctive features of the Church, and to have acquired a Calvinistic taint. Their narrow view of the verbal and literal interpretation of the Bible led to a reaction which gradually increased in intensity. Church principles seemed to be falling into decay; and there was much distraction in the Councils of the Clergy.

The aim of the 'Tracts' was to revive Church discipline, and to bring into prominence those practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church, which were not opposed to the rubric and formularies of our own Church; and to assert the principle, that the Roman Church, though it had erred grievously,1 was (like the Anglican, the Greek, the Gallican, and other churches) a branch of the Holy Catholic (or Universal) Church, represented in the four great early Councils, which are recognised as the basis of our Church rubric and formularies.

The first six tracts of the series appeared in the Record, since notorious for the bitterness of its attacks on those who do not hold so-called 'evangelical' principles.

(So-called, because the assumption of the term 'evan

1 As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, 80 also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.'—Articles of Religion, XIX.