LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
SACERDOTALISM.
fT0 THE EDITOR OF THE " BPECTATOR."1
SIR,—The Spectator reached me too late to reply to my critics in your issue of August 20th. Mr. Ludlow thinks my letter "very valuable as showing the curious one-sidedness of the school to which I belong." I respectfully submit that it is Mr. Ludlow's doctrine which is open to the charge of "one- sidedness." His reference to the "one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," is entirely irrelevant. " To- go straight to God through Christ is," as Mr. Ludlow says, "the height and, to those who have felt it, the necessity of faith." But the straightest way to God is the way of God's own appointment, whatever that may be. The Syrian leper reasoned exactly like Mr. Ludlow. When the prophet bade him go and wash seven times in Jordan, Naaman "turned away in a rage, and exclaimed : "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel P. May I not wash in them and be clean P" Why make a long journey, first to Samaria, and then another journey of thirty miles to the Jordan, if washing in a river could make him clean ? He wished, like Mr. Ludlow, "to go straight to God" in his own way without using the ordained means. But if he had tried the experiment, he would have found that his own way, instead of leading him "straight to God," would have led him straight away from God. Mr. Ludlow says that to have recourse to means, when "Christ is the light of the world," is to say that "we need a candle to see the sun." St. Paul, to whom Mr. Ludlow appeals, has told us that, on the contrary, "now we see through a glass darkly," not "face to face." The fact is that Mr. Ludlow, do what he may, cannot get away from the use of means. How does he propose "to go straight to God"? By private prayer ? But what is private prayer but one kind of means? God is omniscient : why should Mr. Ludlow pray to Him ? Does Mr. Ludlow ever take part in public worship ? But that is another kind of means. Does he pray for any one dear to him ? Why should he, since the person prayed for can go "straight to- God " In short, private prayer, and public worship, and sacraments, and other means of grace are all superfluous on Mr. Ludlow's logic. His letter is, in fact, an indictment a the whole Christian scheme. Why did not God write His message to mankind in characters of light upon the sky, so that all men might read and understand it P Away with the Bible, with all Church ordinances, with missions to the heathen, since every man can "go straight to God."
I take a more modest view of my relation to the God who made me. Enough for me that God has appointed certain means for the bestowal of his gifts ; and I believe that I "go. straight to God" through the use of those means. When I ask, in the Lord's Prayer," Give us this day our daily bread,' I do not expect manna from on high or miraculous multiplica- tion of loaves to satisfy my needs. I expect my prayer to be answered by my use of the means which God has provided for the purpose. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights," but through numberless intermediate agencies, alike in the king- dom of Nature and of grace. "The school to which I belong is thus the school of the Bible, of historical Christianity, and of God's will as revealed in the providential government of the universe.
"H. F. M.'s" letter gives a definition of " sacerdotalism which does not, as far as I know, correspond with the doctrine of any Church in Christendom. It is true that sacerdotalism implies "the official possession, by an outwardly ordained
ministry, of pewers quite independent of the , 8 rsonal character or influence of the possessor." And tli,reils the (loctrine which runs through the Bible. St. Pal. calls Christian ministers "ambassadors," and the validity of an ambassador's acts is quite independent of his charact w and personal influence. Personal worthiness is one .hing ; official position is quite another. But the question in c ispute is the doctrine of the Church of England, and refer "H. F.M." to the twenty-sixth Article of Religion. Your corre- spondent holds, apparently without knowing it, the Roman Catholic doctrine of "intention" in its extremest form. He is wrong, however, in supposing that ministerial acts are believed by any class of " sacerdotalists " to "operate, not spiritually—i.e., consciously through the will." Even our Lord's powers were barred by unbelief.
But it is impossible to discuss so large a question within -the necessarily limited space of your columns, and my share in the controversy must end with this letter.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
