« PoprzedniaDalej »
et ualere debet, satisfuerit in ista actione Symbolum impositionis manuum, quod et Apostolis atq; antiquioribus Patribus satisfuit.
Vt uero Ceremonia hæc maiore grauitate et religione, et uberiore fructu, cum puerorum, tum totius Ecclesiæ peragatur, Decani cum Visitatoribus aut Parochis singularum Ecclesiarum talem aliquem locum in templis ad istam Ceremoniam ministrandam deligent, unde confessio et professio puerorum, et reliqua, quæ cum illis agenda sunt, à tota Ecclesia clare exaudiri et intelligi possint.
P. 85. It may be worth while to give an illustration of what is here referred to. Thus, then, we find Bishop Hooper quoted as an opponent of the Calvinistic view of election, because he has said in his Preface to his "Declaration of the Ten Commandments," that "The cause of rejection or damnation is sin in man, which will not hear, neither receive the promise of the Gospel." Now this might fairly be adduced against the notion that it was not sin, but God's decree, that caused man's damnation; but it does not touch the question of the cause of election; and in the context of this very passage, Bishop Hooper tells us, "The cause of our election is the mercy of God in Christ, Rom. ix. Howbeit he that will be partaker of this election must receive the promise in Christ by faith. For therefore we be elected, because afterward we are made the members of Christ. Eph. i.; Rom viii." (Works P. S. ed. p. 264.) That is, he maintains that it is God's mercy, not foreseen holiness, that is the cause of our election. Bishop Hooper's views have been similarly misrepresented on other points by giving extracts from his writings, adverse to certain extreme views on the subject of the Divine Decrees, as showing his adherence to what is now called Arminian doctrine. But I must content myself with putting the reader on his guard against such misconceptions of the views of our early divines, as it would occupy considerable space to notice them at length.
Pp. 107 and 274. In giving the names of the Regius Professors of Divinity at Cambridge, I have followed Le Neve in his "Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, 1716," fol., (a work of the highest reputation); whose list is, I understand, borne out by the University Register. John Fox, however, in his " Acts and Monuments," (ed. 1583, p. 1966,) tells us, that, at the restoration of the bones of Bucer and Paul Fagius
to an honourable burial, “ M. James Pilkinton the Queenes reader of the Divinity Lecture, going up into the pulpite, made a sermon upon the iii. Psalme," &c. His case, if he is to be added to the list, only affords further evidence of the correctness of the view already deduced from the works of his contemporaries as to the theology of our Church at that period; both as it respects its general character, and its nature on the particular subject of baptism.
For the former, the following passage may suffice.
"And why will God thus save them? for any goodness in them, which had so long forgotten him and his house; or for their good works who had so long been so disobedient? No; but even because I have chosen thee, saith the Lord.' This is the first and chiefest cause, why he bestoweth his goodness upon any people; even because he hath chosen them in Christ afore the world was mude: and for this cause he continueth bestowing his blessing to the end, upon them whom he hath once chosen. . . . . . ' I have chosen you, and ye have not chosen me,' said Christ to his disciples and apostles. And as he thus chose them, so he chooses all which be chosen and so he will declare his free grace, love, and mercy, to all which be his, freely, even because it pleased him to choose them, and they deserved not to be chosen of him, but rather to be cast away from him." (Expos. upon Aggeus, Ch. 2, ver. 20-23. Works, P. S. ed. pp. 194, 195.)
For the latter (if any is necessary after the passage just cited), we may take the following observations on the Sacraments :—
"Under this name of a seal, he commendeth unto us also both his outward visible Sacraments, and the inward grace of the Holy Ghost, working in our consciences by them. St. Paul calleth circumcision (a Sacrament of the old law) 'the seal of the righteousness of faith :' and as that was a seal in that time to our fathers of righteousness, so be our Sacraments to us in these days seals of God's promises unto us, and all have one strength and virtue. The Scripture of God is the indenture betwixt God and us, wherein is contained both the promises, grace, and mercy, that God offereth to the world in his Son Christ, and also the conditions which he requires to be fulfilled in our behalf : the Sacraments are the seals set to his indenture, to strengthen our faith, that we do not doubt. For as it is not enough to write the conditions of a bargain in an indenture, except it be sealed; so God for our weakness thought it not sufficient to make us promise of his blessings in writing in his Scripture: but he would seal it with his own blood, and institute his Sacraments as seals of the same truth, to remain to be received of us in remembrance of him and strengthening our faith." (Ib. p. 192.)
P. 209. 1. 6. The necessity of consulting the works of our early divines to ascertain what is the true meaning of their Formularies (the principle here contended for), is thus distinctly acknowledged by Bishop Bethell: "Several solutions have been proposed in order to get rid of this discordance between the language of our own Church, and the opinions of some Churchmen. But in the meantime it seems to have been forgotten, that the true sense of these compositions must be ascertained by investigating their genealogy, and endeavouring to discover the opinions of their compilers, and the principles on which they were really constructed." (Bp. Bethell's Gen. View of doctr. of Regen. in Baptism. 4th ed. 1845. pp. 98, 99.)
Notice of Archdeacon Wilberforce's Answer to the preceding Work.
While this sheet was passing through the press, Archdeacon Wilberforce's Answer to the preceding Work has been placed in my hands. It is, of course, impossible for me to do much more here than to state my intention of replying to it at as early a period as my other engagements will permit. I avail myself, however, of the opportunity just to notice one or two, out of several like, points, which have struck me in the course of a rapid glance through it. The Work commences with as singular a mistake as can easily be found. Mr. Scott has justly stated, that "the question whether spiritual regeneration is, or is not, inseparable from baptism," has not "any necessary connexion with the doctrines of absolute predestination, and indefectible grace;" justly, because many Arminians deny that it is. But this assertion the Archdeacon strangely metamorphoses into an assertion, that "the theory of Calvin and the doctrine of Baptismal Grace are not so practically irreconcileable, that those who adhere to the one must forego the other;" and finding that my Work maintains that Calvinism and the doctrine that spiritual regeneration is inseparable from baptism are irreconcileable, he thus concludes, "Thus does he [Mr. Goode] take for granted, as the very basis of his position, that which Mr. Scott had so emphatically denied." (pp. 2, 3.) This is but an unpromising commencement; especially when we find the Archdeacon himself telling us in p. 179, that "a belief that any gifts of grace are bestowed where there is no certainty of salvation, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the theory of Calvin ;" a statement which of itself answers a considerable portion of his volume, and is a stronger statement than I have ever made, or think consistent with fact. But then again,
towards the close of his Work, in direct contradiction to this, the Archdeacon spends some 20 pages in proving that certain "Calvinists" did hold the doctrine of invariable spiritual regeneration in infant baptism, referring to Davenant, Ward, and even Usher (!) as testifying against me,
concluding in triumph that "Mr. Goode is utterly put out of Court by his own witnesses." (p. 292.) Of course the Archdeacon is "put out" also, at the same time, and by himself. And the Archdeacon's triumph will be very short with one who consults the writings of the parties he has named. But he seems to have no idea of the essential difference of their views from his own system. As to Usher, it is difficult to conceive how he could venture to name him for such a purpose. The view of Davenant, as stated in his letter to Ward (and this is what the Archdeacon alludes to) every reader of my Work knows that I have given fully, and I think I have sufficiently shown its uselessness for proving what the Archdeacon would derive from it. But what will the reader say when I inform him, that the Archdeacon actually represents the matter as if I had concealed it, and writes thus, "The reader will see that on these facts it would not be difficult to found a charge of disingenuous conduct against Mr. Goode. Why not tell his readers plainly the purpose of Davenant's letter? Why not state more fully the sentiments of Dr. Ward, &c." (p. 272) And he then takes credit for not implying such an imputation, adding a note of reproof for my speaking of the disingenuousness of the Tractarian party! And in several passages in other parts, he complains as if I had not spoken with sufficient respect of Archbishop Laurence, &c. I certainly am not aware that such is the case. The charge against the Tractarian party is too well founded to permit me to withdraw it. But one thing I would earnestly press upon the Archdeacon's attention, that before he, at least, indulges in criticism of this kind, he must expunge from his own book insinuations that his opponents use expressions which they disbelieve, and promise to teach a system which they intend to contradict, &c. (p. 55, 6.) when he well knows, that they believe and teach what in their minds is the true meaning of the language as much as himself. Such language is reprehensible in the highest degree, but nevertheless but too common in the mouths of many of those who think with him.
In p. 264, I find the following statement," He finds the system of Calvinism not only in Abbot and Downame, but in Andrews and Hooker." (p. 264.) The fact is just the reverse as to Andrews, who is mentioned and quoted as opposed to it. (See pp. 114, 115, of first ed. 125, 126, 2d. ed.)
The Archdeacon informs his readers that Mr. Goode "opens his historical statements with the startling assertion that Peter Lombard is on his side, and that in the blooming period of the Scholastic philosophy it was an open question whether grace was always conferred upon infants in baptism,' p. 32." (p. 192.) And he frequently repeats the words, as if the denial was as to any grace being conferred. Now first, I particularly guard myself against the supposition that I quote Peter Lombard as "on my side"; and secondly, the Archdeacon would see in p. 38 of Appendix, that I limited the word "grace" by adding “sanc
tifying," and I leave any one to read the passages I have quoted, and judge for himself whether or not the passages I have given from Peter Lombard do not fully bear out what I have said respecting them. The way in which the Archdeacon would explain these passages is not reconcileable with the language used in them. And I may say the same as to the authorities from the Canon Law quoted in p. 32, commented upon by the Archdeacon in pp. 205, 206; except that the Archdeacon is perfectly right in saying that I should have quoted the latter as the Council of Vienne, not (as I called it, by the Latin name) Vienna. The Latin names, however, are frequently used in such cases, but here certainly it might lead to a mistake. But I shall meet the observations of the Archdeacon on these passages more fully hereafter.
I shall notice now but one more point. The Archdeacon is of course very anxious to get rid of the argument derived from the Baptismal Service in the Cologne Liturgy, and to rescue Archbishop Laurence from the charge of making a mistake about it or the views of its author. In my humble apprehension, he might as well have attempted to prove that two and two make five. The fact is plain and undeniable. Bucer belonged to the Reformed party, and is proved to have held views inconsistent with the notion of invariable spiritual regeneration in Baptism, and he drew up the Baptismal Service in the Cologne Liturgy. Consequently that Service is at least open to an interpretation consistent with his views. The fact that Melancthon gave his assent to the Service does not at all affect the argument. The Achdeacon's anxiety, however, on this point, has led him actually to deny that the Abp. "puts down Bucer as a Lutheran," and even to go so far as to say that the charge "is grounded only upon the fact that Laurence speaks of the language of Herman's Service as Lutheran." (p. 236.)!! I leave the reader to judge from the passages I have quoted how far this is correct. (p. 402, first ed. 438, 9. 2d. ed.)
The above remarks will probably show the reader the necessity of caution in reading the Archdeacon's Work. A more extended reply I must reserve for another opportunity.
Printed by C. F. Hodgson, 1 Gough Square, Fleet Street, London.