Page images
PDF
EPUB

made it a doctrine of the Church of no, recruduerunt." (Cyp. Opp., p. 244.) England; they could not agree In English thus: “I acknowledge upon the matter, and the measure the important and long-continued came to nought; or, in other words, controversy concerning the baptism was prevented. Such things are only of heretics, happily discussed at half understood by reason; and are length at a former time in the excelintelligible to faith alone. They are lent writings of St. Augustine, and, the Lord's doing, and are marvellous if I may use his expression, cleared in our eyes." (P. 220.)

up; to whose unanswerable reasons I leave this curious doctrine of all Christendom has yielded, and synodical infallibility to be discussed has had but one faith concerning by others, who have a more direct baptism, which only it always acinterest in it; and, having replied to knowledged, until in this our age Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now the ravings of the Anabaptists proceed to adduce some additional have broken out again, not only to testimonies to the doctrine of the the injury of the churches, but Church from the writings of her to the most serious prejudice of Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that states also.” The writings of St. “ before the age of Charles I., what Augustine contain many strong pas. are generally esteemned the high- sages on the subject of re-baptizaChurch Divines were almost univer- tion; but I will quote no more at sally in favour of the validity of lay- present than the three following baptism; and after that age still sentences. “To re-baptize a heremany were so, though a most tic, therefore, who has received these marked change took place at that marks of holiness which Christian period, and from that period gained discipline has given, is altogether a ground.” (P. 122.) This change sin; but to re-baptize a Catholic he, following Mr. Keble, attributes is a most outrageous wickedness.” to the influence of the genuine re. (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi mains of Ignatius, then newly laicus aliquis pereunte dederit neces. brought to light, and, perhaps, not sitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciwithout reason; since, if Mr. Blunt peret, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, is to be taken as a specimen of the nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse influence exerted by those writings, repetendam. Nulla enim cogente it has been as great as the most necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurardent admirer of the martyr could patio est ; si autem necessitas urgeat, wish. He quotes him a dozen or four aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. teen times, and appears to believe the Sed etsi nulli necessitate si fiat, et a silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum We will, therefore, now confine our fuerit non potest dici non datum, selves to those who had the privilege quamvis recte dici potest illicite da. of reading his Epistles, and who tum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., were certainly as capable of under- c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly transstanding them aright as any who lated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62.) have held the invalidity of lay-bap. “I doubt whether any man which tism. Bishop Fell, the biographer carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, of Hammond, in his edition of will affirm, that the baptism which Cyprian, speaks thus: “ Agnosco laymen do in case of necessity ad. gravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum minister should be iterated. For to baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. do it unnecessarily is to execute Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem another man's office : necessity urgaliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, ing, to do it is then either no fault eliquatam ; cujus invictis ralionibus at all, or, if any, a very pardonable cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et fault. But suppose it even of very unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, purpose usurped, and given UNTO quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LISThoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum ETH; yet that which is given cannot furores, non esclesiarum modo, sed possibly be denied to have been etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dam given, how truly soever we may say

it hath not been given lawfully." opinion was. No honest man, who There can be no doubt, therefore, of disbelieved the validity of lay.bapthe opinion of Bishop Fell, while we tism, could have written the passage have that of St. Augustine before quoted above. us.*

Bishop Gibson's opinion is pecuMr. Blunt thinks it is hard to liarly valuable, both because he is gain the opinion of Archbishop known to have been well skilled in POTTER; but, surely, the following ecclesiastical law and usage, and a sentences do not need an interpreter: strict disciplinarian in his diocess;

-“It was the common opinion, that and also because the advocates for laymen may lawfully baptize in the invalidity of lay-baptism rely cases of extreme danger. Neither much upon his declaration, already can any instance be produced where quoted in this article, that, after the this practice was condemned by any Hampton-Court Conference, the LiCouncil, or so much as found fault turgy was so altered as “expressly with by any of the primitive Fathers; to exclude it." We have, in the unless, perhaps, St. Basil......... former article, appealed to his reHowever, his judgment is less to be corded acts while Archdeacon of regarded, because he defends the Surrey, in proof that he did not conerror of Cyprian and Firmilian, sider the alterations of the Liturgy which had long before been con as tantamount to a declaration of the demned and exploded by the doctrine of the Church : we have Church." (Works, vol. ii., pp. 236, seen him protesting, in Convocation, 237.) Now, when it is remembered, against the refusal of the document that the Archbishop's avowed de. sent down by the Bishops : we have sign in the treatise quoted was to now to see him as a Bishop, exexhibit the government of the pressly disavowing the doctrine for Church, chiefly as described in which Mr. Blunt contends. On the Scripture, and in the writings of the 20th of October, 1738, Mr. John three first centuries, the examina Wesley and his brother Charles tion of which he thought to be the waited on Dr. Gibson, then Bishop best method of ascertaining the of London, to answer some comsense of Scripture; it appears to me plaints which he had heard against impossible to doubt as to what his them; and the following conversa

tion then took place. The Bishop * Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR has sometimes been claimed as an advocate for the invalidity of lay-baptism; but without sufficient reason, as the

sequence of your having re-baptized following extract will show :-"St. Augustine did

an adult, and alleged the ArchDot know whether baptism administered by a layman should be repeated or no. He knew bishop's authority for doing it.” Mr. not, nor do L. But Simeon of Thessalonica is J. Wesley answered, tbat he had confident that the baptism is null. I cannot say expressly declared the contrary, and SO; nor can I say, let it be received." (Div. Inst.

acquitted the Archbishop from havOff. Min., Works, 1822, vol. xiv., p. 448.) The passage of St. Augustine, referred to here, is

ing any hand in the matter ; but designated by the words, Nescio an pié quispiam, added, “If a person, dissatisfied &c.; and it is therefore evident that the good with lay-baptism, should desire EpisBishop has mistaken the meaning of the Father,

copal, I should think it my duty to who does not intend to intimate his doubts, but

adininister it, after having acquaintrather his certainty. He is so sure himself, that he doubts whether any good man can doubt on

ed the Bishop, according to the the subject. My object, however, in introducing Canon.” “Well," said the Bishop, this quotation is, not to set Bishop Taylor right; “I AM AGAINST IT MYSELF, WHEN but to show that the maintainers of the invalidity

ANY ONE HAS HAD BAPTISM AMONG of lay-baptism have no right to call him as a witness on their side, or, at least, that his testi

THE DISSENTERS.” About three mony will not be of much service to them. He as strong things in the Ductor Dubitantium ley had another interview with his against the lawfulness of lay-baptism; but de Lordship, of which he gives the foldines there, as in the place before us, to give a

lowing account:--"I have used your direet opinion against its validity. Doubtless he felt it was a serious thing to differ from the

Lordship's permission,' said 1, 'to whole Christian world.

wait upon you. A woman desires VOL. XX. Third Series. JANUARY, 1841.

bitkilele

made it a doctrine of the Church of no, recruduerunt." (Cyp. Opp., p. 244.) England; they could not agree In English thus: “I acknowledge upon the matter, and the measure the important and long-continued came to nought; or, in other words, controversy concerning the baptism was prevented. Such things are only of heretics, happily discussed at half understood by reason; and are length at a former time in the excelintelligible to faith alone. They are lent writings of St. Augustine, and, the Lord's doing, and are marvellous if I may use his expression, cleared in our eyes.” (P. 220.)

up; to whose unanswerable reasons I leave this curious doctrine of all Christendom has yielded, and synodical infallibility to be discussed has had but one faith concerning by others, who have a more direct baptism, which only it always acinterest in it; and, having replied to knowledged, until in this our age Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now the ravings of the Anabaptists proceed to adduce some additional have broken out again, not only to testimonies to the doctrine of the the injury of the churches, but Church from the writings of her to the most serious prejudice of Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that states also.” The writings of St. “ before the age of Charles I., what Augustine contain many strong pasare generally esteemed the high- sages on the subject of re-baptizaChurch Divines were almost univer- tion; but I will quote no more at sally in favour of the validity of lay. present than the three following baptism; and after that age still sentences. “To re-baptize a heremany were so, though a most tic, therefore, who has received these marked change took place at that marks of holiness which Christian period, and from that period gained discipline has given, is altogether a ground.” (P. 122.) This change sin ; but to re-baptize a Catholic he, following Mr. Keble, attributes is a most outrageous wickedness." to the influence of the genuine re- (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi Inains of Ignatius, then newly laicus aliquis pereunte dederit neces. brought to light, and, perhaps, not sitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciwithout reason; since, if Mr. Blunt peret, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, is to be taken as a specimen of the nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse influence exerted by those writings, repetendam. Nulla enim cogente it has been as great as the most necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurardent admirer of the martyr could patio est ; si autem necessitas urgeat, wish. He quotes him a dozen or four aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. teen times, and appears to believe the Sed etsi nulli necessitate si fiat, et a silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum We will, therefore, now confine our- fuerit non potest dici non datum, selves to those who had the privilege quamvis recte dici potest illicite da. of reading his Epistles, and who tum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., were certainly as capable of under- c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly transstanding them aright as any who lated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62,) have held the invalidity of lay-bap. “I doubt whether any man which tism. Bishop Fell, the biographer carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, of Hammond, in his edition of will affirm, that the baptism which Cyprian, speaks thus: Agnosco laymen do in case of necessity adgravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum minister should be iterated. For to baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. do it unnecessarily is to execute Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem another man's office : necessity urgaliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, ing, to do it is then either no fault eliquatam ; cujus invictis rationibus at all, or, if any, a very pardonable cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et fault. But suppose it even of very unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, purpose usurped, and given UNTO quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LISThoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum ETH; yet that which is given cannot furores, non esclesiarum modo, sed possibly be denied to have been etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dam. given, how truly soever we may say

it hath not been given lawfully." opinion was. No honest man, who There can be no doubt, therefore, of disbelieved the validity of lay.bapthe opinion of Bishop Fell, while we tism, could have written the passage have that of St. Augustine before quoted above. us.

Bishop Gibson's opinion is pecuMr. Blant thinks it is hard to liarly valuable, both because he is gain the opinion of ARCHBISHOP known to have been well skilled in POTTER; but, surely, the following ecclesiastical law and usage, and a sentences do not need an interpreter: strict disciplinarian in his diocess; -" It was the common opinion, that and also because the advocates for laymen may lawfully baptize in the invalidity of lay-baptism rely cases of extreme danger. Neither much upon his declaration, already can any instance be produced where quoted in this article, that, after the this practice was condemned by any Hampton-Court Conference, the LiConncil, or so much as found fault turgy was so altered as “ expressly with by any of the primitive Fathers; to exclude it.” We have, in the unless, perhaps, St. Basil......... former article, appealed to his reHowever, his judgment is less to be corded acts while Archdeacon of regarded, because he defends the Surrey, in proof that he did not conerror of Cyprian and Firmilian, sider the alterations of the Liturgy which had long before been con- as tantamount to a declaration of the demned and exploded by the doctrine of the Church: we have Church." (Works, vol. ii., pp. 236, seen him protesting, in Convocation, 237.) Now, when it is remembered, against the refusal of the document that the Archbishop's avowed de sent down by the Bishops : we have sign in the treatise quoted was to now to see him as a Bishop, exexhibit the government of the pressly disavowing the doctrine for Church, chiefly as described in which Mr. Blunt contends. On the Scripture, and in the writings of the 20th of October, 1738, Mr. John three first centuries, the examina. Wesley and his brother Charles tion of which he thought to be the waited on Dr. Gibson, then Bishop best method of ascertaining the of London, to answer some comsense of Scripture; it appears to me plaints which he had beard against impossible to doubt as to what his them; and the following conversa

tion then took place. The Bishop . * Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR has sometimes said, “There is a heavy charge been claimed as an advocate for the invalidity of lay-baptismn: but without sufficient reason, as the

sequence of your having re-baptized following extract will show :-*St. Augustine did not kuow whether baptism administered by a layman should be repeated or no. He knew bishop's authority for doing it.” Mr. not, nor do I. But Simeon of Thessalonica is J. Wesley answered, tbat hę had confident that the baptism is null. I cannot say

expressly declared the contrary, and so ; nor can I say, let it be received." (Div. Inst.

acquitted the Archbishop from hav02. Min., Works, 1822, vol. xiv., p. 448.) The parsize of St. Augustine, referred to here, is

ing any hand in the matter ; but designated by the words, Nescio an piè quispiam, added, “If a person, dissatisfied &c.; and it is therefore evident that the good with lay-baptism, should desire EpisBishop has mistaken the meaning of the Father,

copal, I should think it my duty to who does not intend to intimate his doubts, but

administer it, after having acquaintrather his certainty. He is so sure himself, that he doubts whether any good man can doubt on

ed the Bishop, according to the the subject. My object, however, in introducing this quotation is, not to set Bishop Taylor right; “I AM AGAINST IT MYSELF, WHEN but to show that the maintainers of the invalidity

ANY ONE HAS HAD BAPTISM AMONG of lay-baptfam have no right to call him as a withese or their side, or, at least, that his testi- THE DISSENTERS.” About three mony will not be of much service to them. He weeks after this, Mr. Charles Wessays strong things in the Ductor Dubitantium against the lawfulness of lay-baptism ; but deelines there, as in the place before us, to give a

lowing account:--"I have used your direct opinion against its validity. Doubtless he felt it was a serious thing to differ from the Lordship's permission,' said I, 'to whole Christian world.

wait upon you. A woman desires VOL. XX. Third Series. JANUARY, 1841.

made it a doctrine of the Church of no, recruduerunt.” (Cyp. Opp., p. 244.) England; they could not agree in English thus: “I acknowledge upon the matter, and the measure the important and long-continued came to nought; or, in other words, controversy concerning the baptism was prevented. Such things are only of heretics, happily discussed at half understood by reason; and are length at a former time in the excelintelligible to faith alone. They are lent writings of St. Augustine, and, the Lord's doing, and are marvellous if I may use his expression, cleared in our eyes." (P. 220.)

up; to whose unanswerable reasons I leave this curious doctrine of all Christendom has yielded, and synodical infallibility to be discussed has had but one faith concerning by others, who have a more direct baptism, which only it always acinterest in it; and, having replied to knowledged, until in this our age Mr. Blunt's arguments, will now the ravings of the Anabaptists proceed to adduce some additional have broken out again, not only to testimonies to the doctrine of the the injury of the churches, but Church from the writings of her to the most serious prejudice of Divines. Mr. Blunt says, that states also.” The writings of St. “ before the age of Charles I., what Augustine contain many strong pas. are generally esteemed the high- sages on the subject of re-baptizaChurch Divines were almost univer- tion; but I will quote no more at sally in favour of the validity of lay- present than the three following baptism; and after that age still sentences. To re-baptize a heremany were so, though a most tic, therefore, who has received these marked change took place at that marks of holiness which Christian period, and from that period gained discipline has given, is altogether a ground.” (P. 122.) This change sin; but to re-baptize a Catholic he, following Mr. Keble, attributes is a most outrageous wickedness.” to the influence of the genuine re- (Ep. 23, ad Maxim.) Quamquam etsi mains of Ignatius, then newly laicus aliquis pereunte dederit neces. brought to light, and, perhaps, not sitate compulsus, quod cum ipse acciwithout reason; since, if Mr. Blunt peret, quomodo dandum esse addidicit, is to be taken as a specimen of the nescio an pie quispiam dixerit esse influence exerted by those writings, repetendam. Nulla enim cogente it has been as great as the most necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurardent admirer of the martyr could patio est ; si autem necessitas urgeat, wish. He quotes him a dozen or four aut nullum aut veniale delictum est. teen times, and appears to believe the Sed elsi nulli necessitate si fiat, el a silly fable of his inspiration. (P. 183.) quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum We will, therefore, now confine our- fuerit non potest dici non datum, selves to those who had the privilege quamvis recte dici potest illicite da. of reading his Epistles, and who tum. (Contra Ep. Parm., lib. ii., were certainly as capable of under- c. 29.) Which is thus forcibly transstanding them aright as any who lated by Hooker, (Ec. Pol. v. 62,) have held the invalidity of lay-bap. “I doubt whether any man which tism. Bishop Fell, the biographer carrieth a virtuous and godly mind, of Hammond, in his edition of will affirm, that the baptism which Cyprian, speaks thus: “Agnosco laymen do in case of necessity adgravem et diuturnam de hæreticorum minister should be iterated. For to baptismo controversiam, egregiis D. do it unnecessarily is to execute Augustini scriptis feliciter tandem another man's office : necessity urgaliquando discussam, et ejus verbo utar, ing, to do it is then either no fault eliquatam ; cujus invictis rationibus at all, or, if any, a very pardonable cessit, qua patet Christianus orbis ; et fault. But suppose it even of very unam fidem saltem de baptismo habuit, purpose usurped, and given UNTO quod et unicam agnovit semper, donec ANY MAN BY EVERY MAN THAT LISThoc nostro seculo Anabaptistarum ETH; yet that which is given cannot furores, non esclesiarum modo, sed possibly be denied to have been etiam gravissimo rem-publicarum dam given, how truly soever we may say

« PreviousContinue »