The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-06-19
WHY HE LEFT THE CHURCH,
The Rev. Eric Lewis Explains His
Position.
These are the Two Points on Which He
Differs from the I enets of the Church
of England - The Proper Sabbath,

Mr.. EDITOR Il see that in your Issue
Of the 5th inst GU have noticed my se-
cession from the Church Of England and
in so doing have fallen into an inaccu-
racy which you will permit me to correct.
You FAY that 81 have detected to the
Seventh Day Adventists;" this is not the
case, tn ugh the mistake is very nat
ural one Tor it was the embracing OF two
points advocated by them that compel ed
me 10 leave the Church Of England.
They have my earnest sympathy In SO
much else of their teaching that very
probably when have had the opportu-
nity OF studying their doctrine and prac-
tice more closely, shall count it priv
ilege to be enrolled among this despised
but remarkable people, whose covenant
is ito keep the commandments OF God
and the faith OF Jesus"
If l may tresPass further on your space
/ should welcome this opportunity to ex-
plain publicly what has driven me to
adopt conclusions fatal to my continu-
ance in the Church Of England.
As an Evangelical Protestant l have
ever sought to rest upon the word OF God
as my only authoritative guide OF faith
and practice, believing this principle, viz:
the divine authority OF the bible, to be
the on safeguard against the two chi f
religious dangers OF the day, the Scylla
of Ritualism on the one hand, and the
Charybdis of Rationalism on the other.
Within the last six months have come
to see that the Church OF England
in two important points, depends upon
tradition and not upon Scripture, and
therefore TO be trrro TO principle, l am
compelled to leave her. My reasons are
as Grows:
l. The adoption OF Sunday as the So
called Christian Sabbath" has no war
rant in Scripture. This anyone can
easily verify for himself. The bible does
not record that Chist or His apostles
substituted First Day Sabbath in honor
of the resurrection for the Sabbath OF the
fourth commandment. Nor could any
, !l!ii.s hnt a positive direct command
from God abolish or alter His own law:
this has confessedly not been given and
the presence of the fourth commandment
III our Liturgy and inscribed on the walls
OF our churches bears witness that we
accept it as part of the moral law and
binding still.
History reveals how the change took
place, viz: gradually, and by the sub-ti-
tuition of an ordinance Of man for the
command OF God.
The question between Saturday and
Sunday may seem trivial one, but it is
not one OF days merely; its Importance
consists in the underlying difference of
principle, viz. Scripture vs.. Tradition, a
difference which is as fundamental and
far-reaching in its consequences today
as in the days when our Lord rebuked
the Pharisees for setting aside the COM
mands of God by their traditions.
2 The practice Of infant baptism also,
with its corrollary OF the regeneration of
the infant in that sacrament, now reject
as inconsistent with Scripture
The New Testamf mt neither commands
nor prohibits the practice; on the other
hand it teaches that we become the
children Of God by faith in Christ Jesus,
a living faith which involves repentance.
Baptism, on mans side, is or shou be
the outward sign of such repentance and
the confession OF such faith in Christ; it
is, therefore, inapplicable to infants,
who, in the nature Of the case, are in
capable OF either, as the Cate, hism &C.
knowledges The appointment of spon-
sors is a mere human device (unauthor-
lied by Scripture) to cover this manifest
diff ulty; and further opportunity has |
to BIZ sought in Confirmation to supply |
that which was lacking at the child's |
baptism, viz. its own profession Of re- |
penIance and faith 10 administer bap- |
tism TO infants, and to assert their re-
generation thereby, is, l believe, to
becloud the fundamental truth of the |
Gospel that none becomes a Christi N
except by personal reception of Christ |
by faith it is to confuse the new dis
pensation which is elective with the old,
which was hereditary; and it is to de-
prive the child of the only Christ-given
means of voluntarily declaring itself to
the world believer IN Him, anu of rest
ing in Gods own seal and pledge OF the
new birth granted to its faith.
Its practical effect has been most mis-
chievous for long centuri s it has
swamped the churches with hereditary
and has all but obliterated
the liue Of demarcation between the
Church aud the world | had hitherto
it because | believed it TO be
permissible from the differences of Scrip
lure, and that il might be safely taught to
De an anticipatory pledge to the child of
salvation to be granted to lis faith SO
soon as it should exercise that faith; but
have come to see that this latter con-
iitional view is not a fair Interpretation
If the words of the baptismal sarvice
md catechism. l now, therefore, am
to reject the Church Of Eng
and doctrine aud practice in this matter
IS part of the great apostacy from the
ruth whicl began even he ore the death
II the apostles themselves, and culmin-
ted in the system of the Papacy.
The Reclamation was, as We know, an
ttempt to purge the Church from the
OF that apostacy, and to re-
t re Apostolic simplicity and purity OF
Doctrine Unhappily, the Reformation
principles were not carried in the Church
Il England TO their logica issue. This
is that enables an enemy in her very
'osom to attempt to undo the work for
which our Protestant forefathers suffered
nd died
As clergyman of the Church of Eng
and, | have rejoiced to call myself a
'rotestant; but when it became clear
hat, TO be consistent, must deride be-
l., Al. N |