Rev. S.J. Neill's Lecture. REV. S.J. NEILL'S LECTURE.

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5282, 22 December 1885, Page 2

Rev. S.J. Neill's Lecture.

REV. S.J. NEILL'S LECTURE.

REPLY TO THfc MISSIONER'S LETTEK,

The following is the lecture delivered by the Key. S. J. Neill on Sunday evening, as advertised, the texts selected being

'.' 'I'hink not to say >y!thiii yourselves we have Abraham and our father, for I say unto yo.u tljat God is able of these rtoiics to raise up children unto Abra-ham.-Mat. 111., Q." " These answered and said unto him, Abraham is our Father. Jesus saith unto them, if ye were Abraham's c ildren, ye would do the works of Abraham.— John, VIII., 30."

"For lie is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision wh'ch is outward in the flesh. But he isj a Jew which is one inwardly,'and iiircummsipn is that of the heart, in the spirit and not ill the letter.—Kom., 11., 28."

These passages indicate distinctly the scope of oar thoughts to?night. They are a condemnation of those who place religion in an outward ohureb, or who make much of their descent from Abraham. Our position is similar with regard Ito those who claim an outward descent from the Apostle*, but who openly show how far removed they are from the Apostles by their assumption of superiority,—how opposed they are to the Christian spirit by shutting out from their church most of the Protestant world. We speak of a principle, a&d seek to avoid anytbjpg that may teen)

personal. Or if any persons are referred to, it is simply in their public capacity— upholding a principle. We do not seek to show that oar own is the true and Scrip* tural church; indeed we put ourselves for the time being out of the question, or merge ourselves in that large body which the minion priest would cut off from the Christian church. It ia said that the various forms of the Presbyterian church form the largest sect ion of the Protestant world, numbering upwards of 55,000,000. (See P. News, April, 1882, and Weekly News 1880, where the members are put down as 34 or 35 millions, allowing at least two thirds of this number for adherents, will give a total of over 55,000,000). But we make nothing of that, only remarkI ing that it is strange our mission friend should ignore altogether this church, which is larger, or at any rate aa large, as his own. If we go by establishment, the Presbyterian church is as much the church of Britain is the Episcopal church is. But we do not lay any stress on legal or worldly position. We should be very sorry to say anything to justly hurt anyone's feelings, and if unhappily and unintentionally we should be guilty of any such thing, we at the very outset apologise. But we do not regard ourselrea as thereby obliged to conceal or deny facts. You will remember that we pointed out in our lecture last Sunday evening on the "Early Progress of the Christian Religion,' I —how the more we more away from Christ the more do we find a pare and simple faith and worship supplanted by dogma, or priestly rule. The spirit of Christ's teaching, and his express word are opposed to all hierarchical .domination: " One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren:" (Mat. 23c, By.) The washing of the disciples' feet is giren as a reproof to all men seeking place and rule. St. Peter says—"Feed the flook of God, not as lords orer God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." (I. sc, 3v). St. Paul disclaims the position which some would assign to him, and says—" Who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believe." (I. Cor. 3c 5v.) In the same spirit the Apostle James says— "My brethren be not many masters, knowing that ye shall receive the greater condemnation. (3c, 1?.) This is the teaching of Christ himself, and of his three great Apostles, and it is difficult to conceive how it could have been more comprehensive and unmistakable. As He condemns every form of theft, and the desire to possess ourselves of what belongs to otherß, under the injunction of—" Beware of covetous* ness," so does He condemn all forms of worldly seeking, lordship, or priestly domination, by the words, "One is your master, and ye are brethren." Let us apply this fundamental principle given us by Christ and his Apostles to the organisation of the Greek, Roman, or Anglican churches, and having applied it honestly, say if they stand the test. There can be but one answer : all churches depart from the principle laid down by Christ in proportion to their assumption of lordship. Those churches which err most are those which carry out most fully the spirit of domination, There can be no doubt or question as to the names of these churches. There can be no question of their assumption of lordship. It is because of a late exhibition of this spirit of assumption and domination that I am here to-night on the part, not of Presbyterians simply, but of all whom this unchristian spirit would hurt, whether Jews or Eoman Catholics, or Episcopalians, Wesleyans, or Independents.' I claim to stand on the side of man, or to speak on behalf of man—of all men of whatever denomination or of none, whom a hierarchical spirit would enthral and oppress, I aflirra it to he the evident teaching of history that in every age, and country, as the priesthood has developed into a hierarchy—seeking place and power, it has become a foe of liberty, an oppressor of the people, a source of danger in the State. Whether we look to Brahminism, or Buddhism ; to Egypt, or Judaism, or Islam ; to Mexico, or Home, or Britain, it is t c same voice of history. On what side have the spiritual Peers ranged themselves when some great questions of morality and liberty were at stake? Against the oppressor, in favor of peace and of progress, you would expect. Such certainly Christ or his Apostles would have done—nobody can imagine Christ voting for slavery, or war, or class oppression ; but, alas! we have become accustomed to those who hare effrontery enough to talk of Apostolic succession doing so. These are the people who would say we are the church, and you, truth and liberty-Joying dissenters, are not part of the church—at best you are a religious society only, and must be thankful that you are tolerated to live—and must be very glad indeed if you get buried in the churchyard. Are we in these free colonies, where all sects are equal, and no one is the church more than another in the eyes of the land—are we to stand with folded hands and permit fetters to be forged upon us which our forefathers, and our brethren in the home country have given their lives, to break. These "mission priests/ as they call themselves, are hut skirmishers of an army neither weak nor few. Those who have invited them here have, it seems, in some cases, been laboring under a delusion, but it can hardly be doubted that others did so knowingly. If it were merely a matter of High Church against Low Church, it would be very unwise to interfere in our neighbors' quarrels. But when an undisguised manifesto is, under the nara,o of a letter, flaunted in the face of half the people of New Zealand—a manifesto which would cut off thousands of true disciples of Christ from being members of his visible church, then we say, a spirit of loyalty to the Lord of Truth* and to one another, demands us to speak oat and no% b.e silent, and to speak with no uncertain sound. We have hitherto silently borne assumptions of superiority, though knowing and feeling them to be utterly unjust, and foreign to this new country especially. We have seen one scot coming to this country and dividing it, and assuming lordship over it, thereby ignoring all other sects—one now calling himself " Wellington," or " Nelson," or -« Auek land," and another, in a Presbyterian district, calling himself " Samuel T., Bunedia." What Christianity, or honesty, is there in such assumptions of superiority ? Is this what Christ teaches? Js this Apostolic ? Apostolic succession forsooth! Even if Apoatolic succession were a fact instead of a figment, how could there be any real succession on the part of men who assume a position which Christ dis tinctly says his followers must not assume. Successors of those who established the Papacy we grant—indeed that is evident enough,—but we deny that the Roman church had any supremacy before the time of Tertullien or Irenaeus. Indeed the learned historian, Neander, does not see in the writings of these men any aoknow* ledgment tbat " the Boman church held a prounoeace as *lie Cafteclra ?etri orer all

the Apostolic churches." (Oh.Hist. 1., p. 290). We—all the other denominations—have seen tbeie things, bat for the sake of good-fellowship we have been silent; '.it is better to bear some injustice at times and say nothing—besides, it seemed to please onr lordly brethren, and did bat little barm to anyone in this enlightened age and land. Bat when it eomei to denying oar right to the great Chareh of Christ, unless we adopt a damnatory creed, and be subject to a hierachy, we think our brother has trespassed against us, and according to the dinne counsel we rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him. With regard to what may be called theological views, whether of the Episcopal or Roman Catholic Church, we have nothing at present to do. Many of our Episcopal brethren are enlightened and advanced beyond the narrow range of any of the creed. We have to speak simply of th» assumption of spiritual preeminence. In doing so we claim the moral support of erery one of every denomination who believes that Christ's words, to which we have re* ferred, should be oar guide. We know that some, we trust many, of the Episcopal Church are very far from endorsing the manifesto of the Mission priests, and we desire to strengthen their hands. We believe there is a strong party in the Episcopal Church in this province and elsewhere which is very closely in accord with the teachings and position taken up by these priests: we question their claims. We utterly repudiate the base insihuatien that we desire to hurt or diminish any Church by a single member; to each and all we say, abide where you are, become more enlightened, so that your Church may be reformed in the real sense of the word. We entirely disclaim all desire to create unfriendly feeling; we do not attack any* body, we simply defend ourselves from the sweeping attack which has been made upon us. We do not deny to anyone membership of the Great Church of God, but we object to others casting vi out. If any person thinks this it not fair, we think he must have a very one.sided notion of fairness. The Mission priests have written a letter, and published a tract called the 11 Wedding Garment."

The letter speaks of people " drifting from the Church into the sects," and of the " sin of schism." We deny that there is any one body, or any three bodies of people on Earth that can be truthfully called the Church. Where is the collection of people which is not a sectr 1 Is it the Greek Church which is cut off from the Eoman Church, or is it the Boman that ii cut off from the Greek? When the Churches of Fro-Consular Asia disapV proved of the decree of the Italian Council, where then was the sect? When all the Christian world was represented in the first Council at,' Jerusalem, the Boman Church occupied no very important place, and the English Church did not exist. And yet in the "Articles" of the English Church the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioob, and Borne are excommunicated, or censured in regard to faith, ceremonial, and life: i.e., we condemn everybody except ourselves. The same article makes the Church of Christ consist of the congregation of faith* ful men in which the pure word » preached, and the Sacraments duly ad* ministered. But seeing that Jerusalem* Alexandria, Antioch, and Berne have •rred in both faith and ceremonial, it if manifest they cannot claim to be within the pale; and as for Dissenters, how could they duly administer the Sacraments, or i have any glimmering of truth at all; for according to the Mission Priest the true Church, which, of course, is the Prelatie, " possesses ail the virtues," and teaches "afttruth." There is a noble eompre* hensiveness about this which, in the language of the " Wedding Garment," should remove all "scruple," and give ■ " qaiet conscience'•: i«s., if you are fortunate enough to be within the Church. Once you aro within the sacred circle yos become a ohaanel of grace, no matter how clogged up with sin. Listen to the XXVI Article: " Although in the visible Cnuroh the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief author* ityinthe ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet for as much as they do not the same in their own name but in Christ's, and do minister by his commit* sion and authority, we may use their ministry." Onoe you are properly or* dained, nothing can preventyouminister* ing and administering the Word and the Sacraments properly. It is a convenient theory this, in the interests of the priest* hood. How would we like it applied to Government officers of the colony. It ii true there follows a sort of explanatory section, saying that the bad priest is to be deposed; but if he answered well enough, and his work was valid, why depose him; is it only for the appearance of the thine P

The Missioner speaks of the Church ti One, Holy, Catholic,, uhd Apostolic.

To speak, of the Church as OnciM simply playing with a word. Whioh is the One ? What is the word church bat ccolesia, an assembly or congregation of people. "In its primary or oivil sense," says Dr Witheroir, "it means «nyas« sembly called together for any purpose." In this sense it is used in Acts^ IX, 32, where the people in the theatre of Jlpheaut are called a church,—■*• some cried one thing and some another; for the ecclesia (assembly, or church) was in confusion." There is no magical significance in the word church. The Church of Christ or of God is simply the people of God, whether in a house, a city, a country, in the whole world, or in heaven, and upon earth. Our priestly friend, or anyone else, has no right to cut off a portion of this great congregation, 4 and say this is the Church, and all outside * is not the Church. .Can you imagine^ Christ saying any such thing p No, he says in a broad spirit, a truly catholic spirit, when condemning thievery spirit of assumption or exclasivenese in the dit« ciples, Luke 9th, 30r.— " Et that is not agecmst «s is for us " So to say the Church is me, and that this is the first mark of the Church, that it is one, is an aimless playing with words. Does he mean that unit// is an invariable characteristic of the true Church. We could understand that; but where, alas ! is the unity, or oneness ? Do the Greeks and Romans agree P Do not the English Church articles censure most of the Christian world P No risible church oan claim to be the Church. There is no oneness or unity in the outward form of the various bodies professing Chris* tianity, If we are to hare oneness it most be on a better, as well as a simpler, basis than that given by the Mission priest. "If ye love me keep my cOßmand; if ye eon* tiouein my word then ire ye my diioiplat indeed: Herein ia my iatner glorifies! that ye bear much ;|rult. 80 shall ye be mj diiciples." ITe prefer this test of diseiplesbip, gireu by Christ to that either of the Misaioner or of tfe*

19 articles. Christ does not speak about the right administration of Sacraments or about creed.-

Again, the second test of the Church is holiness. This is a very desirble thing. But aa the Church is composed of men who Bin, and aS her teachers are men who sin, it is plain- the whole never can be made holy while the parts are not holy., Two bad sixpences do not make a good shilling, though the will or law of the realm is that the coin be pure. So, though the will of God is that the in dividual should be holy, and the Church -holy, we cannot without blasphemy ' gay we ' are holy—for is it not writ ten, "If we say we have no-sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in ns.". Bui he says the Ohurch is holy, and the Church-is composed of the three fragments, the Greek, Latin, and' English, therefore these are each, aod all holy. We would like to know at what time the holiness began.—wa3 it in the time of Henry the Bth, or. was it in the days of Alexander the VI. or Pius the IX ?

It must, also be Catholic or universal. The want-of universality on the part of the author of this letter is evident from bis refusing membership to a large part of Christendom, declaring it not part of the dmrch. There is not much Catholicity in that. By his own definition he does not belong to the Catholic Church. Then, as to being Apostolic, the fourth and last mark of the Church, we had thought that no well-informed person would talk of such nontense. -If any Church could claim aq. unbroken line of teachers, it might be the Roman, but this it cannot do. Its own historians cannot agree. First aa to Peter being at Rome, the foundation stone of the Apostolic succession, it isl very unlikely that he was ever near it; there is no dependable authority that he was. . Bishop Strossmeyer, at the Great,, Council held undrr the last Pope, in a learned paper showed that he never was there.' The" Roman Church existed before even Paul visted Rome. Euteven even granting that.Peter was there, thereis no certainty in Apostolic succes* sion—it ..is, fall; of gaps. The very passage' in Irenaeus shows the weakness on which the supremacy rests. He says the Church had been founded by Peter and Paul, and committed to Linus. From Linus it had gone to Anacletus, "and ;after him in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the jbißhoprieky" The tradition ofthe Koman Catholic Church has been that the keys bf the kingdom were given, by Peter immediately to Clement; This tradition is in accordance with Clement's letter to James. Thus two links of the chain given by Irenaeus fire dropped out. Nor does the difficulty end here. According to Irenaeus the next bishop to Clement was Evaristus, but Roman Catholic authorities differ here. The Roman Almanac entitled Gerarcbia Catholica interposes Anacletus between Clement andEvaristus. Darras, the great Roman _,„ .Catholic historian, follows Irenaeus, But he is not supported by other "Roiffan'C4tbqllP afl^orities. He fixes the very day of Paler entering upon bis office, 29th June, 33 A.D., but this is nine years earlier than the time given in the Almanac. On the point the Almanac is su^pi^rtpd; by Alzog's Hapdbucb. der Kirobengeshichfe, a book very extensively nsed heretofore among Roman Catholics as a text bpok:6f Church History. Comparing the almanac, Darras, and Alzog, from 130-200/ we; find that there are eight pontificals, BDd there are but two points in - which any two of the three authorities agree, viz, the commencement of the bithoprics.of Sextus «nd Pius. In this Darras agrees with the Handbuch. But the Handbuch and Almanac do not agree,/, inij'a wngle date, neither does Darcasragree with the Almanac in a single/ date;r 'Darras; and the handbook give 14 p'op^as prerioug to 200, whiie the Almanac gives 15. -"'A- fuhiiy sort of Apostolic Succession ! and this in the short space of 200 years, or less. We cannot apeak of tßjß"whble of the bishopS; after wards, but We come'to the English part of the Succession. You see it has to come through Rome, and Rome is divided against itself. „ Even for the first 200 years we cannot say that there was an unbroken Succession. ;

On the English part of the; Succession Lord Macaulay says, •' Weare at a loss to :' conceive how any clergyman can feel confident.that.liiß orders have come down directly—and one of the contingencies which he mentions is whether a "lad of 12 did reajly by a ceremony huddled over when he was too drunk to know what he was about, convey the Episcopal character to a lad of ten," <fee, &c. Wo wonder that the Charch should sfick up for infallible orders ;' no wonder that it should be one of her articles covering such cases as that of the above lad ; that'the ordinances arc everything, the character of the ministrants little or nothing. " These, be thy Gods and Israel." 'This is the Church which with an authoritative voioe in her 19th article excommunicates, or. at least condemns, the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rorae. These are the men who profess that their Church' is Apostolic, his Apostolic Succession, teaches all truth, possesses all virtues, cures all sins. In their wedding garment they openly declare auricular confession, and exhibit a Ritualism, which savors strongly of another Church which tbo Prayer Book is continually speaking against. . We feel sure that the Episcopal Church of England aod'the colonies has enongh of the life of the Reformation iv it to overlive all such foolish assumptions—it ii not the true infallible Church, nor is any other under heaven, nor has it any •trength in claiming such authority. Its strength lies in the life of its members and in their rejecting all hierarch'""' domination, all priestly interfere**' dl in keoping aloft above all -" , c •£ZSr 9f vP^ I**1 ** *'' oacraments or ■Pint of Ha^'_ , ge whatsoeT er, the WnMto» . , ;/wlK)8B i ow iy an d faithful . it-professes to be. In striving .a tnis end, may it have the prayers and help of all faithful men. ■