Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

is challenged with some boldness, by both the opposing parties, as clearly and expressly in their favour. How much fairness there is in some of these appeals, it would be melancholy to have to say. The one party refers to the Liturgy and Services, chiefly; the other, to some of the Articles; while neither seems willing to concede to the other what candour demands. The old charges are constantly revived, of Puritanism on the one side, and Popery on the other, and thrown back, from this to that, with a puerile animosity and zeal, which, were the subject less serious and sacred, would place the combatants beneath notice. The most obsolete and worn out mistakes of the last two centuries, have teemed forth in pamphlets, of which, the ink and the paper, and a somewhat perter and more assured look of ignorance, are the only new points. Surely all this is unworthy of us. Lookers on, Dissenters, for instance, see very plainly how the case stands between us. How long are we determined to blind ourselves to the truth? It certainly is not so difficult to fix the meaning of an English sentence, as controversialists would have us believe. In coming, and, we trust, better times, it will, we think, be quoted as a curious and remarkable fact, that there once existed a considerable number of the English Clergy, who succeeded in persuading themselves that their CHURCH did not consider the Grace of Regeneration to be conveyed in Baptism.

Let not this be taken, however, as insinuating that the disingenuousness which we complain of, has been all on one side. The case may perhaps be fairly represented by a few remarks on two of our Articles: the 16th and 17th. The former is concerning "Sin after Baptism:" the latter, concerning "Predestination and Election." Now,

let it be honestly asked, as to the first, whether it would have occurred for a moment to a maintainer of the Modern Theology to draw up an Article on any such point as "Sin after Baptism?" Whether he would have thought of recognizing any such distinction as this, between Sin before and after Baptism; and between "deadly” sin and other sins? We do not enquire, whether this Article may or may not be believed by the receivers of modern opinions; (probably it would seem to most of them, to announce a mere truism)-but, whether the having an Article on such a subject, and so phrased, does not indicate the existence, among our Reformers, of opinions very different from those which are common at the present day? No one, surely, who understands the points in question, whatever his own sentiments may be, will fail to acknowledge if he be an impartial thinker, that the 16th Article of our Church implies an admission of much which many would now call Popish." It is evidently in harmony with all the feelings and thoughts of the old Divinity. It is, to a certain extent, then, decisive on the question as to the spirit of our first Reformed Theology. Granting even, that the words of the Article do not contradict the modern religious tenets--still they are such as the modern teachers do not, and could not, think of using, and so it is certain that there were elements in the Divinity of the Anglican Fathers, which peculiarly distinguish it from that of their sons in this generation.

66

But, on the other hand, it is by far too common with those who defend the ancient Christianity to allow too little to those who think that they must interpret Calvinistically the 17th Article. This is unwise, as well as unfair: because the wording of that Article is certainly such as

the generality will always be apt to consider Calvinian, while it remains as it is; and a prejudice in favour of the modern opinions generally, is often created by our seeming reluctance to do justice to those who think this 17th Article to be in their favour. Surely we can well afford them the solitary admission that the wording of this one Article seems now more suitable to them than to us. Why should we imitate, in any measure, that sort of unfairness which we charge on them throughout? The 17th Article is not inspired: and there can be no necessity for maintaining that every one of its phrases is precisely the fittest that could have been employed. And yet, from our mode of defending it, something amounting to this seems to be practically assumed. It is not enough for us to shew (what no one now doubts) that our Articles preceded, rather than followed, the Genevan doctrine. Ordinary readers will still feel that the words of this 17th Article, at least, appear to recognize a theology very similar, at all events, to the Calvinian; and they require to have it shewn that, in point of fact, our Reformers did not admit any such system. This should be made to appear as far as possible from their contemporary writings. And it should further be shewn, that the language of the Reformers has often acquired a new meaning by being taken up, and adopted by the controversialists of later times.1

1. At all events, What the different Reformers of our Church-who certainly were no Calvinists-were able to subscribe, we, their descendants, may well be allowed to sign as they did in no Calvinistic sense. By the way; we never heard that the Council of Trent was ever charged with Calvinism-yet the Tridentine Fathers certainly go further than the English Church on this point-even recognizing in some sort personal or individual Election. The words of the Council are: "Nemo quoque quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur de arcano Divinæ Prædestinationis usque adeo presumere debet, &c." (which is similar to the cautionary part of our own Article,). -Nam nisi ex speciali Revelatione sciri non potest quos Deus sibi elegerit."-Sess. vi. Cap. xii.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But it may perhaps be urged, that there might be no end to the disputes as to the scope and spirit of our Service-book, if, according to this recommendation, we are to judge thereof by the extant opinions of its compilers; seeing that there is very great diversity of opinion among them, and that not unfrequently they differ from themselves at different times. There is truth in this: they did so differ-but that fact does not affect our enquiry so far as seems to be imagined. We are not, in this publication, proposing to examine the opinions of any individual Reformers, at any stage of the changes which they certainly passed through. Any one might thus select passages to suit himself. Our enquiry is, simply, as to those authoritative documents, or contemporary publications, which they put forth. The spirit and scope of such documents. cannot but furnish very valuable assistance for the settlement of the debated question, of the meaning, which at the time, our English Formularies were supposed and intended to have. Archbishop Cranmer's opinions, for example, varied at different times, from Romanism to Erastianism. Of his individual sentiments, however, we make no enquiry; but what opinions he authoritatively sanctioned concerning the essential truths of Christianity-(the Church and her Sacraments,)—at the time of the compiling of our Service-book, the Sermons printed in these four Tracts undeniably shew. Perhaps sufficient justice has never yet been done to the character of that singularly candid-minded and well-learned Prelate, who first forwarded, under GOD, the great work of our Reformation; but it is not for us to enter here upon any such topic. We wish to keep, as clear as possible, from even seeming to rest on the opinion or character of an indi

vidual. We will remark, however, that if we had to choose a master from among our Reformers, we certainly should not select Cranmer, while we might listen to the more consistent, and inflexible, and catholic, though not more honest, Ridley. Viewed in this respect, indeed, it is fortunate that the Sermons, now reprinted, were not originally composed by the Archbishop himself, but merely translated, under his direction, from the Latin of Justus Jonas, and "set forth by his authority," for the special instruction of the people. This was done at the very time, however, when the English Prayer-book was in preparation. The "Catechismus" was set forth in 1548, and the Book of Common Prayer was sanctioned by authority in the same year, and published early in 1549; and the Consecration and Ordination Services were added a few months afterwards. So that it will follow, either that the English Archbishop sent forth, at the same time, two totally different sets of doctrines, and put his Archiepiscopal sanction to both at once; or else, the plain and unequivocal teaching of these Sermons from the Catechismus, will afford, we think, a striking exposition of the CHURCH's meaning, and a most satisfactory refutation of the modern attempts to explain away the strong catholic language in our Reformed Offices.

OXFORD,

The Feast of St. James.

1. Ridley's words, on the Reformed doctrine and practice of some Churches, made use of towards the close of his life, are sufficiently remarkable to deserve a place here and in the memory of every English Churchman: "Sudden Changes, and the heady setting forth of extremities I did never love." To Ridley (under providence), we may attribute, among other blessings, the primitive integrity of our Service for the Holy Communion. He calls the consecration of the Elements "A change such as no mortal man can make, but only the omnipotency of CHRIST'S Word !"-See his Life, p. 20.

« PoprzedniaDalej »