may quote, as authorities for a particular doctrine, statements which were far from being intended to bear the meaning we attribute to them. Thus, for instance, the Bishop of Exeter has quoted from Dr. Jackson a passage nearly identical in words with his own statements, but which Dr. Jackson intended to be understood in a very different sense.

And my great object in offering these preliminary remarks is, to point out the different views that may be, and have been, entertained on the subject, within the limits our Church seems to prescribe; in order both to shew the reader the various aspects under which it may be viewed, and to prevent a misconception of the meaning of testimonies to be hereafter adduced.

The moderation of our Reformers induced them to leave points on which Scripture has not spoken explicitly, open, within Scriptural limits, to a difference of view. And accordingly there has been from the first some variety of sentiment among our divines on this subject. That there were any, however, who embraced such views as those advocated by the Bishop of Exeter and the modern "High Church" school, until about the times of Mountagu and Laud, in the latter part of the reign of James I., I have yet to learn. And for the way in which our Formularies were originally understood, (and consequently for the interpretation which has at least the best claim upon our acceptance), we must go to the testimonies we find in the works of our Reformers and early divines, particularly of those who were instrumental in establishing those Formularies upon their present basis. And here we shall find ourselves in a school of theology very different from that which has long held the supremacy among us. This fact it is essential to realize, if we would arrive at any correct conclusion as to their doctrine on the matter before us. And therefore I shall devote an early chapter to the elucidation of this point.

The views held on the subject of Baptism have always been intimately connected with, and corresponding to, those held on the subject of the nature of the Church.

Now on the latter point, there have been two leading views into which the opinions of our divines have been divided. One of which is this,-That the nominal Church consists of two distinct portions, one consisting of those who will ultimately be

saved, the other of all those who will ultimately perish; of which the former correspond to the wheat, and the latter to the chaff, in the Scripture parable. And, following out the view of the subject which this parable and other similar descriptions of the Church in Scripture seem to give, the maintainers of this doctrine hold, that those sown as wheat by our Lord never become chaff; that those who are once truly united to his mystical body, the true Church, never perish.

In connexion with this view, it is held, that the full baptismal blessing can be enjoyed by those only who are adopted by Christ as wheat-as true members of his mystical body.

The other view is this;

That there is no such distinction between the members of the nominal Church, but that all who are baptized are alike regarded by Christ as members of his body, and equally partakers of the influences of his Spirit.

In connexion with this view, baptism is regarded as, in all cases, equally, the formal act of incorporation into the true body of Christ, bringing the baptized into the possession of all the spiritual influences vouchsafed by Christ even to those who will ultimately be saved. It is held that as baptism is the ordinance by which the party baptized promises faith and obedience, so in it God bestows the gifts of the Holy Spirit, unites to Christ's Church, and promises final salvation on the fulfilment of certain conditions, in the case of every infant, without any reference to any purpose of his own will, or any previous work of his on the heart, or any future faith and repentance in the child.

Of these two views the works of our Reformers clearly show that they maintained the former, and therefore, whatever minor variations are traceable in their doctrine on the subject of Baptism, the modern "High Church" notion of all the baptized receiving indiscriminately the full baptismal blessing was opposed by them all.

It seems to be forgotten by those who would limit our Formularies to such a sense, that our early divines made common cause with the Continental Reformers, particularly (and indeed, in Queen Elizabeth's time, exclusively) with those of the "Reformed" (that is, more or less, Calvinistic) Churches. And the leading divines of those Churches were the great authorities, of later times, quoted by them in their works.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE VIEWS OF SOME OF THE EARLIER SCHOLASTIC

DIVINES.

BEFORE I proceed to those testimonies which are of authority in our Church in determining the question under discussion, it may be worth while to point out to the reader the fact, that the doctrine of some of our "High Church" divines of the present day is much less consistent with a sound Protestant view of the subject than even that of some of the earlier scholastic divines. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, the Father of the Scholastic divines, might be read by them with advantage on this point.

In referring however to those authors, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition, that I attribute to them any weight in determining the doctrine of our Protestant Church. And the reference which is now being made to them by the Tractarian party, in support of their errors, I regard as a delusion,-nay more, as an unwarrantable attempt to mislead the public mind, by sending it to sources of information of a corrupt character, and opposed to the doctrines of our Church. A writer of this school has recently ventured to maintain that "the language of our Forms can only be understood by reference -not to the Reformers, but-to the theology of the Schools." And passages are given by writers of this Party, from the Scholastic divines, as if they had a species of authority among us. Perhaps a Roman Catholic author will be a better authority with such writers than a Protestant, to show them their mistake. I will therefore give them an extract from Sanders's work "De Schismate Anglicano."

In his account of the Reformation under Edward VI., under the head "The Scholastic Doctrine exploded," ("Doctrina scholastica explosa,") he says,

"All the books of those masters who have taught theology and the other sciences with power and judgment, they hurl out of the hands of students, and almost from the Libraries, inasmuch as they know that by their sound doctrine and methodical treatment of the subject, the popular frauds of the heretics are without difficulty perceived and dispelled; Lombard, Aquinas, Scotus, and the other most learned Scholastics, they accuse of barbarism, ignorance of the Scriptures, and various errors, and inveigh as much as they can against their memory.' "'*

This extract may suffice to show how much weight was allowed to the Scholastic divines by our Reformers.†

And so early as 1536, Archbishop Cranmer used the following language respecting them publicly in Convocation :

"To determine anything, especially in a Synod, without warrant from the Scriptures, was not becoming the character of a Bishop. That the nicety and jargon of the School divines was more proper for boys in the University than divines in such a solemn assembly.”‡

But it may not be without its use to refer to Peter Lombard on this occasion, because we certainly may derive from his statements on the point now in question an a fortiori argument as to the doctrine of our Church.

The Master of the Sentences, no doubt, holds, that all the infants of Christians receive in baptism remission of their sins. But on the question, "Whether grace is given to infants in baptism by which they may profit in riper years," he says,

"It is often also asked, whether grace is given to infants in bap

Libros omnes eorum magistrorum qui vi et ratione Theologiam cæterasque disciplinas tradiderunt, quia istorum solida doctrina et methodica institutione hæreticorum populares fraudes non difficulter cerni et dispelli sciebant, e studiosorum manibus et fere e bibliothecis excutiunt ; Lombardi, Aquinatis, Scoti, cæterorumque doctissimorum scholasticorum nomina de barbarie, Scripturarum ignoratione, et varia deceptione traducunt, memoriamque quantum possunt damnant, &c. (Ed. Col. Agripp. 1610, p. 233.)

In the above remarks, I am not, of course, denying, that some illustrations of the meaning of phrases used by our Reformers may be gathered from the works of the Scholastic divines, but only that our Reformers attributed any weight to their writings as exponents of the Christian faith. Collier's Eccl. Hist. ii. 121.

tism, by which, when they have the opportunity of using their free will, they may have a good inclination of the will and run well. For with respect to adults who receive the Sacrament worthily, it is not doubted, but that they have received influencing and co-operating grace. . . . But respecting infants who have not arrived at the use of their reason, there is a question, whether in baptism they have received grace by which, when they come to riper years, they may be able to will and work what is good. It appears that they have not received it; inasmuch as that grace is love and faith which prepares and aids the will. And who will say that they have received faith and love? But if they have not received grace by which they may be able to do good works when they have grown up, therefore the grace given in baptism is not sufficient for them in this state [i. e. as adults], nor can they now be good through it, but need the addition of other grace."

Such was the view taken even by the Father of the Scholastic 'divines. Without entering into the question whether he may not have overstated the matter in denying that such grace is ever given, one thing is quite clear, namely, his opposition to such views as those of the Bishop of Exeter. In fairness to his Lordship, however, I will add, that he admits that,

"Some think that influencing and co-operating grace is given to all infants in baptism, so far as concerns the bestowal, not the use of it, so that, when they have grown up, they may obtain the use from the gift, unless through their free will they extinguish the use of the gift by sinning.*"

* Si parvulis datur in baptismo gratia quá possunt in majori ætate proficere. Solet etiam quæri, si parvulis in baptismo datur gratia quâ cum tempus habuerint utendi libero arbitrio possint bene velle et currere? De adultis enim qui digne recipiunt sacramentum non ambigitur, quin gratiam operantem et co-operantem perceperint; quæ in vacuum eis cedit si per liberum arbitrium post mortaliter deliquerint; qui merito peccati gratiam appositam perdunt. Unde dicuntur contumeliam Spiritui Sancto facere et ipsum a se fugare. De parvulis vero qui nondum ratione utuntur quæstio est, an in baptismo recipiunt gratiam qua ad majorem venientes ætatem possint velle et operari bonum? Videtur quod non receperint ; quia gratia illa charitas est et fides quæ voluntatem præparat et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem? Si vero gratiam non receperint qua bene operari possunt cum fuerint adulti, non ergo sufficit eis in hoc statu gratia in baptismo data; nec per illam possunt modò boni esse, nisi alia addatur; quæ si non additur, non est ex eorum culpa quia justificati sunt a peccato. Quidam putant gratiam operantem et co-operantem cunctis parvulis in baptismo dari in munere non in usu, ut cum ad majorem venerint ætatem ex munere sortiantur usum nisi per liberum arbitrium usum muneris extinguant peccando: et ita ex culpa eorum est non ex defectu gratiæ quod mali fiunt; quia ex Dei munere valentes habere usum bonum, per liberum arbitrium renuerunt, et usum pravum elegerunt. (PETR. LOMBARD. Sentent. lib. 4, dist. 4, fol. 82. Ed. Paris, 1510. 12mo.)