COMMON PRAYER BY CONVOCATION AND PARLIA- page 477-482 CHAPTER XII. TESTIMONIES FROM OUR DIVINES SINCE THE RESTORA- Concluding Remarks 483-528 485-523 523-528 APPENDIX. No. 1. Luther's Form for the Baptism of Infants, according to the second edition published by him in German in 1524, and translated and published in Latin in 1526 No. 2. The Order and Form of Baptism (including the Prefatory Remarks on the subject of Baptism) inserted in the Brandenburg and Nuremberg Liturgy of 1533 529-532 533-542 No. 3. The Forms and Orders for Baptism and Confirmation, with the accompanying observations, drawn up and inserted by Bucer, in the Liturgical work published in 1543, by Herman, Archbishop of Cologne ADDENDA, &c. 542-566 566 ad fin. DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS TO THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM IN INFANTS. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. THE remarks contained in the following pages are intentionally confined to the discussion of the question, What is the doctrine of the Church of England as to the effects of baptism in the case of infants? In treating this subject, I shall argue it quite independently of the further question,-Whether the XXXIX Articles are, or are not, the supreme standard of faith and test of orthodoxy for the ministers of our Church in those points treated of in them,and shall endeavour to show the sense of our Formularies, both from internal testimony, and as illustrated by the writings of our divines from the period of their construction. Before I proceed, however, to the regular discussion of the subject, I would offer a few preliminary remarks tending to illustrate the real character of the question, and to show how far a definite and certain solution of it is to be expected. It appears to me that erroneous views are often entertained on this point. The matter is frequently spoken of as if the Church of England must of necessity have laid down, and had in fact laid down, a certain definite precise view upon this subject, and peremptorily enjoined it upon all her ministers for their acceptance and belief. In my humble apprehension such a notion is entirely opposed to fact, and also to the well-known principles upon which our Reformers were guided in drawing up the Formularies of our Church. As our Reformers have not bound us to one precise human system of theology, so they have not, in my belief, tied us to one precise view of the subject we are now about to discuss, and the parties who are the loudest in clamouring for the establishment of their view as the exclusive doctrine of our Church, are probably the farthest from the doctrine of our Reformers; even.to the transgression of the limits which they certainly did not intend to be overstepped. The way in which some parties are in the habit of putting forward their view on this subject as precisely and definitely the exclusive view of the Church of England, to be held by all her ministers on the pain of incurring the charge of dishonesty and being driven with disgrace from her communion, forcibly reminds one of the tone assumed by one of their late leaders when advocating his system as the doctrine of the Fathers. In his opinion (and he, we were told, was one of the most learned theologians and patristical scholars in our Church, if not supreme among them) there was no room for argument on the subject. That his system was established as the truth by the Catholic consent of all the Fathers, was "an obvious fact,"* about which in impartial minds there could not be any doubt. But somehow or other, in the course of a very few years, the "obvious fact” was found out to be a delusion; the produce of a one-sided interpretation of a few passages from certain authors favourable to the doctrine which had engaged his affections. And so this very learned patristical scholar, who was to have enlightened all England by showing them how "everybody always everywhere," for many centuries from the first foundation of the Christian Church, had maintained "Church principles," was cut short in his course by the awkward "fact" that he had made a great mistake, and that there was no such consent. But alas! "Church principles" were too precious to be abandoned, and therefore (wisely upon his view of the subject) he adopted the principles that come nearest to them, and in some points appear to approximate very closely to them; and passed over to a party where the trouble of further doubt, argument, or research, is rendered wholly unnecessary, and an infallible determination bids every scruple cease and every tongue be silent. * See Newman's Lectures on Romanism and Popular Protestantism, passim. I will not anticipate such a result from an endeavour to prove that the statements of certain parties as to the doctrine of our Church on the subject we are now considering, are as idle and groundless as Mr. Newman's claims for his "obvious fact." But the assertions seem to me so remarkably similar in character and origin, that the remembrance of the one came forcibly into my mind when about to offer some remarks on the other. Now, as I have already intimated, it appears to me, after long and anxious consideration of the question here proposed for discussion, that all which our Church has done upon this question is, to lay down certain limits on both sides, within which the views of her ministers are to be confined. At the beginning of the Reformation in Germany, several of the Continental Reformers, offended with the grossly corrupt doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject, maintained (or at least used language which seemed to imply) that the Sacraments were mere signs, not having any peculiarly promised gift of grace attached to them, even in the case of the most worthy recipients. This view seems rather implied, even by Melancthon, in the earliest edition of his "Loci Theologici," published in 1521, under the title of "Hypotyposes Theologicæ,"* a work which underwent very great alterations in subsequent years at the hands of its author, partly in this point, and more especially in some others. But Luther, apparently from the very first, took a higher view of the value of the Sacraments in the case of faithful recipients. And the language of Melancthon (though to the last cautious and guarded) soon became similar to his on the subject. The difference of language, however, between Luther and some of his friends on one side, and Bucer and others of the Reformers on the other, upon this point, was one of the subjects of discussion in a Conference held between Luther, Melancthon, and others, as representatives of one party, and Bucer, Musculus, and others, as representatives of the other, at Wittemberg in 1536, in which, after mutual explanations, the parties present came to a full understanding on the point, and each side agreed to withdraw expressions tending to the undue exaltation or de * The Chapter on the Sacraments is entitled "De Signis." The original edition is of great rarity, but it has been reprinted in Von der Hardt, Hist. Liter. Reform., and lately republished separately in Germany. preciation of the Sacrament of Baptism. An account of this Conference is to be found in Bucer's "Scripta Anglicana."* And in the same year Bucer published a new edition of his Commentaries on the Gospels, containing a "retractation " of some passages on Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which had appeared in his previous edition of 1530.+ The concessions made by Bucer and his party upon this occasion were not altogether grateful to the whole Protestant body; but the ground taken in this Conference upon the subject, certainly became the prevailing view among the Continental Reformers, especially in their public Confessions. I purpose hereafter to revert to it. Now, upon this point, as we might expect, our Church has spoken decidedly. In her 27th Article she declares, (and requires her clergy to maintain,) that "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened; but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth,"-and that not an empty, but efficacious sign-" whereby, as by an instrument, they that RECEIVE BAPTISM RIGHTLY, are grafted into the Church, &c. . . . . Faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." Our Church thus repudiates the doctrine of those who hold baptism to be a mere sign, and pronounces that a certain definite gift and blessing are attached to it in those that rightly receive it. Here, then, is the limit on one side. But on the other side, there were those, namely, the Romanists, who maintained that baptism conferred grace upon all to whom it was given, even ex opere operato, that is, from the performance of the act; in case there was no direct obstacle opposed to its reception by the party baptized. So it was laid down in the Council of Trent. "If any one shall maintain, that the Sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they represent, or that they do not confer the grace itself upon those who do not place an obstacle in the way; as if they were only external signs of a grace or righteousness received through faith, and certain marks of Christian pro * Buceri Scripta Anglicana. Basil. 1577, fol. pp. 648-669. + Buceri in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes. Basil. 1536. fol. pp. 42-45; and 483–487: 566, 567. |