THE HERMIT OF

THERE are few duties more difficult for the Christian to practise than that which is enjoined in the following portion of sacred writ: "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." The patiently bearing of injuries, and the returning of good for evil, are graces of no easy attainment; but they shone amongst the brightest features in the character of our blessed Redeemer, when he condescended to wear our flesh, and to sojourn with us. He was meek and lowly in heart; He was despised and rejected of men; He was oppressed and afflicted, buffeted, spit upon, and cruelly murdered; He made intercession for the transgressors.

3

un

How rarely do we see, in this day of high profession, instances of these amiable graces; how soon are our exertions damped, and our ardour chilled, when we find that our endeavours for the spiritual welfare of our fellow-mortals, or rather fellow-immortals, are welcome; how does the world's dread sneer appal us; how ready are we, when we meet with an uncourteous rebuff, to shelter our selves under this or some similar passage; "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend 99. you.'

a

I was lately much struck, pleased, and at the same time shamed, on reading an interesting memoir of a pious old man, well known in the Isle of Thanet by the appellation of the Hermit of Dumpton Vale*. He is no misanthropist or cynical recluse. The author, in the course of the narrative, which is enriched with many beautiful illustrations of the amiable qualities which adorn the subject of his work, and various ex

*The Hermit of Dumpton Cave was published in 1823.

NOV. 1824.

DUMPTON CAVE.

cellent observations, relates the following fact.

He

"About a year and a half ago a neighbour, of whose religious character and that of his whole family he thought with grief and dread, was seized with a dangerous illness, which soon afterwards proved fatal. The hermit as soon as he heard of it went unsolicited, and walked into the chamber of the dying man; but his presence was so unacceptable to him and his sons, that the latter, with a degree of violence, which respect at least for his and blameless manners, age if not for his motives, ought to have restrained, not only turned him out of the room but actually threw him down the stairs. was considerably bruised by this most unjustifiable outrage; but happily received no permanent injury. The next day he went to the house again, and the door was shut in his face and locked. He went yet again the third day, when his importunity prevailed; and he had the satisfaction not only of doing all in his power to enlighten and soothe the dying man, but also of seeing the whole surviving family become his devoted friends, and perfectly changed characters; always solicitous of his visits, and eager to listen to his religious instructions."

May the example of the poor old hermit, in his eightieth year, be a lesson to all Christians, and teach them the value and importance of steady perseverance in the path of duty, and excite them to pursue the spiritual welfare of those who are within the sphere of their exertions with unabated ardour, whatever resistance they may find from those whose eternal interests they are desirous to promote: Let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap if we

FAINT Not.

3 H

H. LISSON.

DEAR SIR,

. I FELT a kind of satisfaction in penning my last epistle, from the consciousness of having something a little resembling an argument to grapple with. We now return, I am sorry to say, to the region of shadow and indistinctness; for the third reason of our Author is conveyed in the following terms, which I have vainly endeavoured to understand.

“That no man, whether magistrate or priest, king or bishop, can have any rightful authority over the consciences of men."

This language conveys no distinct idea to my mind, and it is therefore difficult to discover its meaning. I have searched Cruden, whose.definitions are generally admired, for the meaning of the word "Conscience" and he tells me, that it is the testimony and secret judgment of the soul, which gives its approbation to actions that it thinks good, or reproaches itself with those which it believes to be evil." Now it is perfectly obvious, that if this description be accurate, the "reason" we are considering is a simple truism. For no man has " authority over" his own conscience. He cannot silence its reproach or gain its applause by any other method than submission to its dictates, and submission belongs not to one exercising authority. It will neither act nor be quiescent, approve or condemn, at his dictum. And if not at his own, how should it defer to the dictation of others? How should any man" have authority over it?" To assert its independence, therefore, in this point of view, is, as I said before, to assert a simple truism. But what has all this to. do with the question of Dissent?

I may, however, be told that this is not the sense intended to be conveyed by these words, but that they mean merely," that no one has a right to impose any law or obligation on the consciences of others, which the word of God has not previously sanctioned." But if this be the real drift of these expressions, it is certain that they are contradicted by common sense and every day experience. Although all human laws ought to be founded entirely upon the principles laid down in holy writ, still they cannot reasonably be confined to the mere letter of Scripture. Much of the detail of these regulations has been left to those to whose duty it has fallen to legislate for different countries, different ages, and under dissimilar circumstances. And the statutes against smuggling, or those which levy rates for the erection of a church or a bridge, are fully obligatory on the conscience of every man who is able to understand the apostolic injunction, "Obey them which have the rule over you, &c."

...But if we follow this writer in his explanation of this "third reason,” we shall find room to doubt whether either of these, the only natural constructions, is really the meaning intended to be conveyed by these obscure expressions; for he proceeds to tell us, that "religion lies between God and the soul," and then brings forward five or six texts to prove the right of private judgment. Who denies the right of private judgment? But how does the right of private judgment prove the reasonableness of dissent? All this is a mere repetition of the fallacy with which we were treated in the " first reason." Because he was at liberty to dissent, there

fore he would dissent, was the doctrine he started with. So now, because he has a right to examine for himself the respective grounds of the Church and Dissent, therefore he is a Dissenter. Not, observe, because he has examined, or because he finds cause for it, but merely because he has a right to act upon such a cause, if found. The "fourth reason" assigned is, "the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of faith." It is rather ludicrous to find this brought forward as a reason for leaving a Church, one of whose Articles (the sixth) runs as follows:

66

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation."

I suppose that words more fully and explicitly asserting the principle of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture could not easily be found. And yet we are told, that this very principle, upon which the Church is founded, is a ground of dissent from it!

But let us hear the argument for this singular position. It is thus stated: "Your Church, in the twentieth Article, pretends to have power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith.' This we think rank Popery; for no one can have such power who is not infallible, which no one but the Pope pretends to be."

This argument, if it be good for any thing, fastens the imputation of Popery upon the Apostles themselves; for although they laid no claim to infallibility, we find in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, that questions having arisen among the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, "it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch; and to write

letters by them after this manner : The Apostles and Elders and Bre thren, send greeting, &c.-Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, &c. it seemed good unto us, being assembled, to send, &c. to lay upon you no greater burden than these, &c." We observe also, that in the eleventh chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul, having argued at some length against a practice which had obtained amongst them, concludes by an appeal to the authority of the Church-" If any man seem to be contentious (or discontented with the arguments I have adduced, then let him know, that) we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

it

An appeal of this kind to the judgment and decision of the assembled church, seems to have been usual from the very days of the Apostles down to the present time. But let it be observed, that the Church of England confines this authority within limits which ought to silence every candid objector. For the Article, which is never quoted entire by our opponents, goes on to affirm, that is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it may be repugnant to another; wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation."

What an idea of the candour of dissenting writers does their constant suppression of this part of the Article give us? And what a conscious weakness is shewn in the evident fear of telling the whole truth? What should we think of a foreigner, who, after a visit to

this country, returned and informed his own people, that in England twelve men called Judges had the sole powers of sentencing men to be hanged, and forgot at the same time to inform them that this power only extended to those persons who had been first found guilty of a positive breach of the law? And where is the difference between omitting to state, in the one case, that the authority of our Judges is controuled by the law; and, in the other, that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Holy Scripture? "The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith;" but she pretends neither to decree any thing contrary to Scripture, nor to propound any thing as necessary to salvation, which is not found in Scripture.

One word more. This " reason" consists of an objection to an authority assumed by the Church. Now the best way of deciding the validity of 'such an objection, I should suppose to be by examining the operation of this authority. If its exercise be really burdensome and vexatious, it can easily be shown to be so; if not, it is mere speculative opinion, which can scarcely be held to justify separation. Now, what has been the operation of this authority claimed

by the twentieth Article? Grounded on Scripture it certainly is, as we have already seen; but has it been stretched to an excessive degree, or used in an irritating and deriding manner? Let our opponents say, when and where it has been called into exercise at all during the last century; and we may then examine whether it was exercised wisely. In truth, it is a principle, a claim, which they contend against, not an active and interfering authority. And are we to be told, that a Church, scriptural both in her doctrines and her government, is to be departed from because she claims the power of establishing a decent and appropriate form of religious worship, and of pronouncing an authoritative opinion in matters of faith which may be controverted,-subordinate in both to the Scriptures themselves. Is this a good and sufficient "reason for Dissent?" If so, methinks your minds must be in a frame to be easily satisfied with arguments on that side of the question. I am obliged to revert to your Author's first position—“ I shall dissent, because I may dissent,” in order to understand how such reasoning can be admitted. I remain, dear Sir, Yours sincerely,

A CHURCHMAN.