CHAPTER X. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATECHISM ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS WORK. THE same theological system which we have hitherto found to pervade the works, both public and private, of our early divines, is, of course, observable in the Catechism they drew up for children. And the discrepancy between their theology and that of the larger and (politically considered) more influential portion of their successors after the lapse of about half a century, that has caused their Liturgical Services to be misconstrued, has, of course, had the same effect in the case of the Catechism. argument as to the meaning is in both cases one and the same. And the proofs stand or fall together. The Certain words, disconnected from the known sentiments of the men to whom we are indebted for them, are appealed to as conclusive in favour of the "High Church" doctrine on the subject. The argument is in fact very similar to that of the Roman Catholics for the doctrine of transubstantiation from the words "This is my body." It is only necessary, however, to go to the works of our early divines, and make ourselves acquainted with their general theological views, to see that such an interpretation is entirely contrary to their doctrine. The phraseology of the Catechism is precisely in accordance with that used in the Baptismal Offices, the meaning of which we have already seen. As in the Baptismal Service we are led to the expression of our presumptive belief that the child baptized is accepted by God, so in the Catechism, the child, not yet arrived at the years of responsibility, is taught to use respecting itself the language appropriate to one who has been so accepted. No one really conversant with the views and phraseology of our early divines would expect any other language to be put into the mouth of the child. Hence the child, speaking of its baptism, is taught to say," Wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But immediately the current theology among our divines began to change, and not till then, these words were fixed upon as containing an affirmation that every child necessarily received at its baptism the full baptismal blessing of spiritual regeneration and incorporation into the true Church of Christ. These words are insisted upon as a dogmatical declaration of the Church as to her views on the effects of Infant Baptism. I shall now proceed, therefore, to consider the meaning of these words, as shown both by other parts of the Catechism and by contemporary writings. My remarks are principally directed to this passage, because it alone affords any plausible ground for saying that the Catechism is opposed to the view I am here maintaining of the doctrine of our Church. The quotations sometimes made from the latter part of the Catechism, (which was added after the Hampton Court Conference, and which, though put in its present form by Overall, is chiefly taken from Nowell's smallest Catechism,) are entirely and obviously misapplied. The description there given of the nature of a Sacrament, as consisting properly of two parts, applies as much to the case of adults as to that of infants; and therefore, as in the case of adults both Sacraments may be administered without being accompanied by the grace of the Sacrament, so no evidence can be adduced from the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism as consisting properly of two parts, to prove that all infants must necessarily have received both parts in their baptism. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper consists of two parts, but "the wicked" (our Article tells us) "are in no wise partakers of Christ" in receiving it, but only "eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." And so, though baptism has properly two parts, and one is spiritual regenerating grace, an infant may receive it and yet receive only the sign or sacrament of that grace. A conclusive argument, no doubt, may be derived from these passages against those who affirm that the Sacrament of Baptism is a bare and empty sign, to which, even in the case of the worthy recipient, no special grace is attached by Divine promise. But the question as to the character and qualifications necessary in those who receive the inward grace as well as the outward sign in baptism, both as it respects adults and infants, is not touched by the statements here made as to the nature and effects of baptism. The only passage, then, calling for explanation, is the one I have already quoted :-"Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." And from this passage is deduced the doctrine that every child is in baptism spiritually regenerated; born again by a new and spiritual birth, such as cannot be repeated, and which makes a man a spiritually regenerate man for the rest of his life. Whatever a man's conduct may be, if he was baptized in his infancy, he is a regenerate man. There may never be from first to last any faith or repentance exercised by him. But nevertheless, if he has been baptized as an infant, all this must be predicated of him to the end of his life. Such is the doctrine maintained. But Now the best proof of the sense in which these words were used, is to be derived from other works of the same period. I must first observe, that the Catechism itself supplies us with amply sufficient evidence against such an interpretation of the words as that just mentioned. I will not now dwell upon the general character of the replies put, throughout, into the mouth of the child, as appropriate only to one whose mind is in the condition in which we could desire it to be; though this fact ought to be carefully observed. For instance, when the question is asked, "Dost thou not think that thou art bound to believe and do as thy godfathers and godmothers promised for thee at thy baptism," the reply is, "Yes, verily, and by God's help so I will," &c.; words which it would be absurd to take as affirmatory of the state of mind of every child, and the proper subjects (as the Bishop of Exeter and others would make the Catechism) of dogmatical inferences.* From such passages as this, the Bishop of Exeter may see the absurdities into which his notion of "the precise dogmatic teaching" of the Catechism (see his Charge, p. 46) would lead those who followed it out. But there are two passages in the Catechism which afford conclusive evidence on the subject. The first occurs in the former part of it, and was in the Catechism as originally published, and shows clearly both the doctrinal views, and the principle, upon which the Catechism is constructed. In speaking of the Holy Ghost, the Catechumen is instructed to say, "who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God;" words which evidently and directly teach him to regard himself as one of "the elect people of God." And who "the elect people of God" were, in the view of our Reformers and early divines, can hardly be a question with any one who will take the trouble to consult their writings. And I have already given so many proofs on this point, that I think it needless to add to them here. But as these words, understood in such a sense, obviously supply us with an irresistible argument in favour of the view for which I am here contending, I would direct the reader's attention to two contemporary documents of public authority of a similar kind, which settle the question beyond dispute. The first is the Catechism published by Cranmer himself in 1553, called Edward VI. Catechism, as having been issued by his authority. To the question respecting the Holy Spirit, “Cur Sanctus appellatur," the reply is, "Non tantùm ob suam ipsius sanctitatem, sed quòd per eum electi Dei et membra Christi sancta efficiantur." Or as it is expressed in the English edition ;-"Not only for his own holiness; but for that by him are made holy the chosen of God and members of Christ."* Now in this Catechism, as we have already seen,† the "electi Dei," or "chosen of God," are those members of the visible church that "stedfast in the faith," and "predestinate and appointed out to everlasting life before the world was made," through the gratuitous "goodness and love of God." And this Catechism was, as I have said, published by Cranmer himself nearly at the same time that he gave the Church the little one we are now considering. The second document is Nowell's Catechism, publicly sanctioned by our Church at the time at which our Prayer Book was Liturgies of Edward VI., Park. Soc. ed. pp. 562 and 514. re-established at the commencement of Queen Elizabeth's reign. The same words that I have just quoted from Edward VI. Catechism are repeated in this.* And after the proofs given above of the connexion between this Catechism and that of Calvin,† it would be mere trifling to discuss the question, who he meant by the elect or chosen of God. The answer put into the mouth of the child, then, as to the effects of Baptism, is at once explained. The child who was taught to consider himself one of "the elect people of God," was also taught that, being such, he had (according to the theology of that period) received in baptism the full baptismal blessing. Whatever other sense the words of the Catechism may in themselves be capable of receiving, (and I have no wish to limit them to the "Calvinistic" view) this was certainly the sense in which they were originally understood. And this original meaning it is necessary to bear in mind, if we would take an intelligent view of the case as it really is. Even taking the words in what would now be called the "Arminian" sense, (that is, that the election spoken of is the result of foreseen faith and holiness,) one thing would still be clear, that the language put into the mouth of the child must be understood as applicable, not to every member of the visible Church without distinction, but only to a certain portion of it. And so clearly did Archbishop Laurence see this, that (to make good his ground) he adopted the monstrous position, that all the members of the visible Church are regarded by our Church as the elect. Such a notion does not deserve a serious refutation. In fact, apart from any question of the meaning of the word "elect," the phrase," who sanctifieth me," shows that the words must not be understood as descriptive of the condition of all. For, are all thus sanctified? Again, a passage in the latter part of the Catechism (which though added at a later period, must be taken now in connexion with the former) directly opposes the notion that the full baptismal blessing is necessarily conferred upon all infants. For not only is it said that "repentance and faith" are necessary in an adult coming to baptism, in order that he may profit by it, * See ed. of Oxf. 1795. 8vo. p. 94. † See pp. 88-90 above. |