AN APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

A REVIEW OF DR. HOOK'S SERMON

f

ON "HEAR THE CHURCH,"

Preached before the Queen, at the Chapel Royal, in St. James's Palace, June 17, 1838.

Dr. Hook is the Apostle and High Priest of the high church scheme of the present times. If assertions were proofs, his writings would contain convincing evidence of the authority of his Mission. I doubt his assertions; and I controvert his scheme. His doctrine of the SUCCESSION has been sufficiently refuted in the preceding Essay; indeed the arguments in the Essay do, in their consequence, demolish his whole high church building.

But there is one topic upon which he evidently delights to dwell; for he speaks and preaches it every where; it is this-That the present church of England was founded by the Apostles, and has come down to the present day, with no greater difference, at any time, from that Apostolic Church, than the difference caused in the same man by having his face washed or unwashed; see page 13th of his sermon.-This is his favourite illustration. Speaking of the church of this country before the Reformation, when sworn to Popery, the Pope acknowledged as its head by all its authorities, when governed by Bishops who preached the doctrines, and were sworn to the government of Popery, when the church itself was filled with Idols and abominations; with perfect and full grown Popery, and comparing that church with the church after the Reformation, he says, "The CHURCH REMAINED THE SAME AFTER IT WAS REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before," p. 12. The conclusions he draws from this argument, are,—that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND "maintains those peculiar doctrines and that peculiar discipline, which have ALWAYS MARKED, and do still continue to mark, the distinction between the Church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of Chief Pastors or Bishops who have regularly succeeded to the Apostles, from those sects of Christianity which exist under selfappointed Teachers;"-that this church is the ONLY church of Christ in this kingdom:-that "it possesses its original endowments, which were never, as ignorant persons foolishly suppose, taken from one church and given to another," (p. 12);—that her Bishops have regularly succeeded to the Apostles; and that her ministers are the ONLY divinely commissioned

Ministers in this kingdom: all other denominations are SECTARIANS, SCHISMATICS, and left to the UNCOVENANTED mercies of God, as the heathen are! On this ground he has the intolerable arrogance thus to insult the Christian Churches in general in America: "When the United STATES OF AMERICA were English Colonies, the ENGLISH CHURCH was there established: at the revolution, the State was destroyed.* Monarchy has there ceased to exist; but the Church, though depressed for a time, remained uninjured: so that there-among the American republicans— under the superintendence of no fewer than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments and ordinances administered, and all her ritual and liturgical services celebrated, with no less of piety, zeal, and solemnity, than here in England; there you may see THE CHURCH, LIKE AN OASIS IN THE Desert, blessed by the dews. of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around her, in a land where, because no religion is established, IF IT WERE NOT FOR HER, NOTHING but the EXTREMES of INFIDELITY or FANATICISM WOULD PREVAIL." p. 7, 8.

The reader sees at once that this is the succession scheme a little modified. That scheme has been sufficiently refuted in the Essay. We intend, in this Review of the Sermon, to expose the sophistry of this modification. Here, "THE CHURCH" is the topic:-" BISHOPS" were the former topic.

If Dr. Hook be the man he is said to be, it is hard to suppose that he is not conscious of the sophistry of his own argument: in which case he would be a public deceiver: if his reasoning powers be weak, he may possibly be entangled in his own net. Be these things as they may, his argument is a TISSUE of sophistry:-we shall endeavour to untwist it, and break its force of deceiving.

66

*This attack upon the religious bodies of the United States, he mixes up with a political Philippic. The writer is no advocate for a Republic: indeed he leaves politics in general to others. Yet there is a sentiment, on the page adjoining to the last quotation, which deserves remark. He says, 'were all connexion between Church and State to cease, we may be sure the monarchy would be destroyed." This was telling the Queen that none are loyal to her, as the Queen, except she pays them for it; and the same to kings in general. Dr. Hook, and such as he, may speak from their own feelings, as to what they would do for the Queen IF NOT PAID BY HER: but to affirm it of Christians in general, Is A VILE SLANDER, and is calculated to disaffect the mind of the Queen towards all her Christian subjects who are not of the Establishment. All real Christians receive the Bible as the rule of their faith and practice. From the Bible they learn to "submit to the powers that be," equally as much under a monarchy as under a Republic. The Wesleyan Methodists, for instance, yield not to the members of the Establishment in loyalty to the Queen. But farther-Was the Christian Church connected with the State for the FIRST THRee hundred yeARS? Did not the State persecute the Church every where? The Roman Republic had ceased to be when the Christian Church began to exist. The Emperor was more absolute than the king of England. Now, Did the primitiVE CHRISTIANS RISE TO DESTROY THE THRONE? Hear Tertullian: "In ALL OUR PRAYERS, we are ever mindful of all our EMPERORS AND Kings wheresoevER WE LIVE, beseeching God for every one of them without distinction, that he would bless them with length of days, and a quiet reign, a well established family, a stout army, a faithful senate, an honest people, and a peaceful world, and whatsoever else either Prince or people can wish for."-For Dr. Hook to go before the Queen to propagate his libel upon all her Christian subjects, and upon Christianity in general, deserves the severest rebuke. Such a man can cast "firebrands, arrows, and death, and say, Am I not in sport?"

The GREAT FALLACY or delusion of the whole argument, lies in using

the expression "The Church," in DIFFERENT SENSES, in different parts of the argument; that is, as Logicians would say, in CHANGING THE TERMS. The way in which he manages this, is, by giving only A GENERAL and imperfect definition of the terms in the BEGINNING of his sermon; and then, introducing particulars into it in the progress, as is the most convenient for deception. So, at pages 5 and 8, he says, "Now at the very OUTSET, I must state that I refer to the Church, NOT as a mere National Establishment of Religion, but as the Church, a religious community, intrinsically independent of the state; that is to say, I am about to treat the Church, not in its political, but simply and solely in its religious character.—And so you may perceive what is meant, when we say, that we wish to speak of the Church, not as an establishment, but as the Church, A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY, A PARTICULAR SOCIETY OF CHRISTIANS." Then, this "particular society of Christians" becomes " OUR Church" "The Church OF ENGLAND "THE Church "; and, at the last, on the LAST page, this "particular society of Christians," becomes DISTINGUISHED from all other "religious societies BY THESE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, as maintaining those PECULIAR DOCTRINES, and that PECULIAR DISCIPLINE, which have ALWAYS MARKED, and do still continue to mark, the DISTINCTION between the Church of Christ, administered under the superintendence of chief Pastors or BISHOPS Who ReguLARLY SUCCEEDED to the Apostles, from THOSE SECTS of Christianity under Self-appointed teachers." Well, thanks be to the Dr. for giving us, at last, a complete definition of the Church of England. This definition, as perfected by himself, is, "That the Church of England is a particular society of Christians, DISTINGUISHED from all other particular religious societies, by its PECULIAR doctrines, and its PECULIAR discipline." By discipline, he tells us, he means its Church Government, as administered by its Bishops: their Succession is another question, and has been fully treated in the Essay.

66

Now let us try his main position. "THE PRESENT CHURCH of England is THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH of England, reformed in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, of certain superstitious errors; it is the same Church which came down from our British and Saxon ancestors. THE CHURCH REMAINED the SAME AFTER IT WAS REFORMED AS IT WAS BEFORE, just as a man remains the same man after he has washed his face as he was before," p. 11, 12.

66

66

Here, then, let us examine the matter. The Church BEFORE the Reformation was a particular religious society;" and the Church AFTER the Reformation was a particular religious society." There is, then, this GENERAL agreement, that EACH was a religious society." So a Harlot is a woman, and a Virgin is a woman. There is this general agreement

66

between them, that EACH is a woman. Now if we wish to know the DIFFERENCE that DISTINGUISHES the Harlot from the Virgin, we should be told that it would be the PECULIAR principles, manners, and conduct of each. If, then, we wish to know the DIFFERENCE that DISTINGUISHES the Church BEFORE the Reformation, from the Church AFTER the Reformation, the answer would be, "The PECULIAR doctrines and the PECULIAR discipline of each Church." Each is a Church, i. e. "a religious society;" as each of the above persons is a woman: but wERE THOSE CHURCHES THE SAME? This will be answered by another question-Are a Harlot and a Virgin the SAME? Yes, according to Dr. Hook, IF THE HARLOT

WASHES HER FACE!

Let us look at the face of the Church before the Reformation, and at the face of the Church after the Reformation :-at their PECULIAR Doctrines, and their PECULIAR Discipline.

1. PECULIAR DOCTRINES:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.-The church, before the Reformation, maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and cOMMITTED HUNDREDS TO THE FLAMES for disputing it: but

The Church, after the Reformation, declares it "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, that it overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Article 28th of the Church of England.

MASSES. The Church, before the Reformation, maintained that the Priests did OFFER CHRIST for the quick and dead to have remission of pain and guilt:

The Church, after the Reformation, declares these positions to be "BLASPHEMOUS FABLES, and dangerous deceits." Art 31st. of the Church of England.

IMAGES.-The Church, before the Reformation, maintained the woRSHIP of IMAGES, and the CHURCHES were full of Images :

The Church, after the Reformation, declares this to be IDOLATRY; see Homily on Idolatry. Thus also the 22nd Article: "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, WORSHIPPING and ADORATION, as well of IMAGES, as of RELIQUES, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God."

JUSTIFICATION.-The Church, before the Reformation, maintained that a man was justified through the grace of God by works, and NOT by faith

ONLY:

The Church, after the Reformation, maintained that the doctrine "that we are justified by faith ONLY, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of Justification." Article 11.